[Quantum_Wizard]

bootlegga wrote:

[Japan's] armed forces are the most powerful in Asia - excepting perhaps the US forces stationed around Asia.

I'm fairly sure that at least China's armed forces are more powerful than those of Japan.

Japan's military expenditures are about 0.9% of the GDP, which is quite low in fact. Of course, due to the large size of the country, this still results into something fairly formidable. For comparison e.g. South Korea's expenditures are around 2.8% of GDP, that is about three times as high (in relative terms), which is understandable considering their northern neighbors. These numbers are from Wikipedia, so beware of errors in them.

Japan's constitution is also rather pacifistic compared to other nations. The Self-Defense Forces are legally an extension of the police force. Also there's no such thing a court martial in Japan. Rather, soldiers who commit crimes are judged by civilian courts applying relevant civilian laws.

[bootlegga]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

[Japan's] armed forces are the most powerful in Asia - excepting perhaps the US forces stationed around Asia.

I'm fairly sure that at least China's armed forces are more powerful than those of Japan.

Not really.

China may have numbers, but Japan has capabilities.

Japan's navy is newer, better trained and better equipped and has much more amphibious assault ships than the PLAN and is capable of long range blue water ops. The JMSDF has a brand new 18,000 ton helo carrier which some analysts is beginnings of a naval aviation tradition again. Meanwhile the JASDF has roughly 400 hundred modern fighters, coupled with long experience with force multipliers like aerial refueling and AWACs aircraft (China only recently developed those capabilities). The PLAAF may have several thousand of fighters, but many of them are old (some dating from the 1950s), short-ranged and ill-equipped for modern air combat. The JGSDF has almsot 1000 MBTs, which for a nation with very little 'tank country' is more than a little odd.

If they ever decide to scrap their Article 9, they can develop heavy bombers, carriers and all sorts of other offensive weapons easier than most of their potential opponents (including China). Tack on their space program and they are capable of deploying spy satellites and even building ICBMs should the need arise. If threatened, they have the ability to manufacture nukes in relatively short order too (although they'd have to abandon the NPT as well).

In short, the Japanese are more than capable of defeating any conventional attack on their nation and more than capable of taking the fight to the enemy and actually landing substantial numbers of well-equipped troops on the Asian mainland if necesssary.

I would guess that the Chinese will surpass the Japanese as the msot powerful force in Asia sometime in the next decade or so, but they aren't there yet.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

Japan's military expenditures are about 0.9% of the GDP, which is quite low in fact. Of course, due to the large size of the country, this still results into something fairly formidable. For comparison e.g. South Korea's expenditures are around 2.8% of GDP, that is about three times as high (in relative terms), which is understandable considering their northern neighbors. These numbers are from Wikipedia, so beware of errors in them.

Constitutionally, Japan is allowed to spend a maximum of 1% on defence. Given GDP fluctuations and the ups and downs of currency valuation, they usually spend just a smigden less - about .9% as you said. That works out to roughly $50 billion or so, which is always in the top 10 in defence spending, and occasionally in the top 5. That amount allows Japan to currently field more modern fighters than China, a nation 10 times its size in population.

IMHO, that's the problem with examing defence spending as per capita ratio. Some Middle Eastern nations spend far more per capita than the US, but spend far less annually and have far smaller and much less effective militaries than the US.

Ultimately, what counts is the total dollars spent - not how much is spent per person living in your country.

[Thanos]

I've never been there myself unfortunately but others who have always speak about the politeness and friendliness of the people, the incredibly clean urban and public areas, and the well-organized civic and government structures. Modern Japan is pretty much a testiment to what a society can build when the prevailing attitude favours the 'public' aspect of things as being as important, if not more so, than the 'private'. This is a terrible tragedy that still might find a way to get worse yet but judging by the character of the Japanese nation they will emerge from it as strong as they were before. Good on 'em and God Bless.

[ShepherdsDog]

You can look back on their history and see Japan has favoured quality over quantity, which is the opposite of China.

[Thanos]

Agreed. In a worst case scenario I'd be worrying far more about Japan if they ever turned fascist/militarist again than I ever do about the so-called 'threat' some morons (belonging to a specific ideology that's been 100% wrong with every single one if it's pronouncements over the last decade) keep saying that China represents. If Nagumo had sent in that third wave of bombers against Pearl Harbour and destroyed what was left of the port facilities, then the qualitative edge in equipment (especially in ships and planes) and tactics Japan had over the Allies in the first two years of the Pacific War might have made all the difference, and ended up creating a much different conclusion to that part of the world conflict.

[Quantum_Wizard]

bootlegga wrote:

China may have numbers, but Japan has capabilities.

But numbers do count for a lot too.

bootlegga wrote:

Meanwhile the JASDF has roughly 400 hundred modern fighters, coupled with long experience with force multipliers like aerial refueling and AWACs aircraft (China only recently developed those capabilities). The PLAAF may have several thousand of fighters, but many of them are old (some dating from the 1950s), short-ranged and ill-equipped for modern air combat.

However, even only counting their much more modern fighters, they still have more than Japan's 400.

bootlegga wrote:

The JGSDF has almsot 1000 MBTs, which for a nation with very little 'tank country' is more than a little odd.

China, on the other hand, has several thousand.

bootlegga wrote:

If they ever decide to scrap their Article 9, they can develop heavy bombers, carriers and all sorts of other offensive weapons easier than most of their potential opponents (including China). Tack on their space program and they are capable of deploying spy satellites and even building ICBMs should the need arise. If threatened, they have the ability to manufacture nukes in relatively short order too (although they'd have to abandon the NPT as well).

Well, China has all of these already, except aircraft carriers.

bootlegga wrote:

Ultimately, what counts is the total dollars spent - not how much is spent per person living in your country.

I agree, but China does spend more than twice as much as Japan in absolute terms.

[andyt]

Thanos wrote:

I've never been there myself unfortunately but others who have always speak about the politeness and friendliness of the people, the incredibly clean urban and public areas, and the well-organized civic and government structures. Modern Japan is pretty much a testiment to what a society can build when the prevailing attitude favours the 'public' aspect of things as being as important, if not more so, than the 'private'. This is a terrible tragedy that still might find a way to get worse yet but judging by the character of the Japanese nation they will emerge from it as strong as they were before. Good on 'em and God Bless.

Right on. We could learn a lot from them. Stoicism, civic responsibility, seeing yourself as part of a collective not just as an individual. I would probably chafe under the strict codes of behavior the Japanese have. We don't have to copy them 100%. But a bit of it would do us good. And, I've never met a Japanese person in Canada that I didn't like on some level. Their energy is just so much different than other Asians.

[Bodah]

I have a feeling the typical "What's in it for me" attitude is absent from most Japanese people but what's probably prevelant among them is "what can I do to help get this done" might be more accurate description.

[Psudo]

I'm all for stoicism and civic responsibility, but seeing yourself as part of a collective is often a prized trait of very messed up nations as well. Singapore, for example, is all about collective responsibility. I don't see how a bit of Singapore would do North America any good.

Voluntary collectives work fine, but mandatory ones fail. That's the relevant distinction.

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

I'm all for stoicism and civic responsibility, but seeing yourself as part of a collective is often a prized trait of very messed up nations as well. Singapore, for example, is all about collective responsibility. I don't see how a bit of Singapore would do North America any good.

Voluntary collectives work fine, but mandatory ones fail. That's the relevant distinction.

From what I hear, Singapore has worked an economic miracle. Life is good and safe there. Lots of people, possibly yourself would agree with it's approach to crime.

But in Japan, it's definitely a voluntary collective. It's the culture. Wouldn't be surprised of the same is true of Singapore.

I'm sure I would find Singapore and even Japan stifling to live in for the long haul. But as I said, it wouldn't hurt us to absorb some of the spirit of those places, while still finding room for the greater individual cultural liberty we enjoy. We had it once - what they call the great generation had it, partly because they had a huge war to fight. But as Wyatt said "We blew it, man."

[Psudo]

andyt wrote:

Lots of people, possibly yourself would agree with it's approach to crime.

Certainly not me. I had a pen pal in Singapore. We'd talk politics quite often. They are not delighted with their one-party, overly-authoritarian state where chewing bubble gum can be punished by caning, minor drug possession and homosexuality carry the death penalty, and joining an alternative political party can get you arrested. Their nationalized industries are generally resented rather than revered. Calling them a voluntary collective shows an ignorance of the broken political system there. Their government cannot reasonably be said to identify what the citizenry wants (especially on social issues), let alone respond to it.

I like bubble gum and freedom of association (especially with political parties), oppose corporeal punishment, and while I don't exactly support drugs or homosexuality they clearly should not be capital crimes. I doubt much of a proportion of North Americans would consider that an agreeable approach to crime. We write dystopian thrillers about the beautiful, clean places where you are safe from everything except heavy-handed government paternalism. In Singapore, they live it.

I admit I am listing the bad points without a balancing list of the good points. This is not intended to provide a balanced portrait of Singaporean politics, but to point out the dramatic gap between how they operate and what typical North Americans deem acceptable.

Yawning Bread writes a blog on homosexuality and censorship in Singapore from a rather left-wing liberal, very native perspective. For a more complete portrait of Singaporean politics from a perspective both closer to yours and closer to Singapore's, read that.

Most of the Far East, Singapore and Japan included, has a strong Confucian tradition of sacrifice of self for government, even flawed government. I prefer the Washingtonian example of self-sacrifice for good governance. We don't need to learn from Japanese collectivism when we have a better, domestic tradition receiving too little attention..

[BartSimpson]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

I'm fairly sure that at least China's armed forces are more powerful than those of Japan.

A few years ago on this site was a story about how a Japanese Army General uncharacteristically responded to an overt Chinese threat. The issue was that China was insisting that they had the right to send their nuclear armed submarines through Japanese home waters any d@mn time they wanted to. The Japanese, of course, did not agree.

So the usual diplomatic pissing war took place and a Chinese Navy guy made some irksome comment.

Usually, the Japanese either don't respond to such things or they let a diplomat speak to it.

This time an Army General spoke to it and his response was a serious statement with multiple facets.

In response to the Chinese threat to attack Japan he said, "The Imperial Japanese Army still knows its way around China."

First off, I'm buying this guy a beer if I ever meet him.

Second, he made a statement by referring to the Army not as the Japanese Self Defense Forces Army, but as their old name, the IJA. With the Japanese such things are not said lightly and a message was sent with this comment.

Next, the quip about how the IJA 'knows its way around China' infers a LOT.

1. Japan has contemplated an amphibious action against China if it's needed (and they have the capability to do it, too).

2. Japan maintains intel on China.

3. Japan is not so horrified by what they did to China last time that they won't think about doing it again. They most definitely are not the Germans.

Last, the fact that a General replied to this issue instead of a diplomat was a way of saying that it was not a diplomatic issue to Japan anymore and that if the Chinese insisted on sending their subs into Japanese waters it would be handled by the military.

Couple this with the comment from their PM last year that Japan could be nuclear armed 'in six months' if it wanted to be and for those of us who know how to parse the Japanese that means they already are a nuclear armed nation. And probably with the blessing of the USA.

Bottom line; Japan is not afraid of China. But given the lack of Chinese subs in Japanese waters anymore I'd say China is afraid of Japan.

Edit: And unlike China, Japan is building and operating its own aircraft carriers.



Now before anyone shuts it down and says, "Well, it's just a helicopter carrier" I'll remind you that the Japanese are in the F35 program and will be acquiring the VTOL version that can work from a helicopter carrier.

[bootlegga]

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

China may have numbers, but Japan has capabilities.

But numbers do count for a lot too.

Ask Saddam (or just about anyone else) about the difference between Western quality and everyone else's quantity.

Despite China's large defence budget, their military has actually shrunk in total numbers because they realized after Gulf Storm that sheer numbers will not give them any dominance in a region with South Korea and Japan, much less the USA.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Meanwhile the JASDF has roughly 400 hundred modern fighters, coupled with long experience with force multipliers like aerial refueling and AWACs aircraft (China only recently developed those capabilities). The PLAAF may have several thousand of fighters, but many of them are old (some dating from the 1950s), short-ranged and ill-equipped for modern air combat.

However, even only counting their much more modern fighters, they still have more than Japan's 400.

Nope, Japan currently has more high tech fighters than China does. This will change in the next few years, as China is building J-10s and Su-27s as quickly as it can, but right now Japan still has the edge. However, even after China surpasse Japan, given Japan's expertise with force multipliers like aerial refueling planes and AWACs, China will still be outgunned, so to speak.

Once Japan's JSFs appear, China will really be behind the eight ball again. And if Japan goes forward wih their new stealth fighter, I expect it to be much more capable and advanced than the J-20 the Chinese are building.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

The JGSDF has almsot 1000 MBTs, which for a nation with very little 'tank country' is more than a little odd.

China, on the other hand, has several thousand.

Again, Japan's are all modern versions, while China maintains hundreds of tanks from the 50s/60s. Gulf Storm showed how capable such MBTs are against modern tanks - which is to say, not very capable.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

If they ever decide to scrap their Article 9, they can develop heavy bombers, carriers and all sorts of other offensive weapons easier than most of their potential opponents (including China). Tack on their space program and they are capable of deploying spy satellites and even building ICBMs should the need arise. If threatened, they have the ability to manufacture nukes in relatively short order too (although they'd have to abandon the NPT as well).

Well, China has all of these already, except aircraft carriers.

China has a handful of heavy bombers copied from 50s era Soviet designs. How long do you think they might last in an environment against Japanese F-15s, Aegis Cruisers or Patriot missiles? Not very long.

The only 'offensive' weapon that China has in numbers are long range missiles. Again, how long will they last against a nation that has spent $5 billion on BMD in the past few years (and is a partner in the US BMD ssytem)? And that's even if China is willing to retask them from their current targets on Taiwan.

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Ultimately, what counts is the total dollars spent - not how much is spent per person living in your country.

I agree, but China does spend more than twice as much as Japan in absolute terms.

And that would change instantly if the US was to leave Japanese territory - which I don't foresee anytime soon. Otherwise, the $50 or so odd billion is plenty to maintain Japan's technical lead over China.

[BartSimpson]

bootlegga wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

...China does spend more than twice as much as Japan in absolute terms.

And that would change instantly if the US was to leave Japanese territory - which I don't foresee anytime soon. Otherwise, the $50 or so odd billion is plenty to maintain Japan's technical lead over China.

The Japanese federal budget is oblique and much of their defense spending is not done via the defense budget but via MITI under the guise of industrial development.

For instance, the Japanese tend to place certain projects under MITI as a kind of subsidy to Japanese industry. Therefore, a destroyer can be a jobs program for shipyard workers and the expense comes out of a social program budget.

The JSDF budget tends to reflect operational costs and some direct acquisition costs, but you have to dig deeper if you want to see their real expenses, which are not exactly limited to 1% of GDP.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Quantum_Wizard wrote:

...China does spend more than twice as much as Japan in absolute terms.

And that would change instantly if the US was to leave Japanese territory - which I don't foresee anytime soon. Otherwise, the $50 or so odd billion is plenty to maintain Japan's technical lead over China.

The Japanese federal budget is oblique and much of their defense spending is not done via the defense budget but via MITI under the guise of industrial development.

For instance, the Japanese tend to place certain projects under MITI as a kind of subsidy to Japanese industry. Therefore, a destroyer can be a jobs program for shipyard workers and the expense comes out of a social program budget.

The JSDF budget tends to reflect operational costs and some direct acquisition costs, but you have to dig deeper if you want to see their real expenses, which are not exactly limited to 1% of GDP.

That's true, they funnel a lot of funds (in the form of grants for R&D and such) to Japanese corporations with MITI.

I remember that back in 1999, the Japanese Capital Acquisition portion of the budget was larger than the entire Canadian defence budget.