Just for the record, I wasn’t trying to suggest that the Japanese were up to something nefarious - I was merely objecting to China Guy’s description of Japan’s armed forces as ‘puny’. As a whole, Japan has one of the most effective armed forces on the planet. Certainly in the same ballpark as the other major militaries, at least in the areas where it deems itself important. Protecting Japan, that is. BTW, they have a lot of submarines (over 20), and a lot of their weapons systems are absolutely state of the art.
I think the U.S. is about the only country that could effectively overpower Japan on their home turf.
Does this mean Japan is tied for second? I’m used to Japan being number four, between the PRC and UK/France (which were generally tied for fifth), ever since I was forced to look it up by the jeers of an auditorium full of classmates when I boldly asserted that Japan was in the top 10. (Ties in these senses are approximate, of course.)
How reliable do we feel our estimates of Chinese military strength are these days?
Boris
Uhh, what I meant with that elegant bit of poetry was that, it doesn’t matter to me what they call it, and it doesn’t directly appear to have constitutional implications since the 1947 Constitution forbids sea forces (et al.) in pretty general terms.
Here’s a link to a pretty neat ship: http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/jmsdf.htm#osum
330 troops, multiple helicopters on its full-length flight deck, compatibility with air-cushion landing craft, low radar signature. I bet it looks like an Iwo Jima class LPH.
Well, as we found out in the Gulf war, judging a military by simply counting the weapons on hand is pretty useless. Iraq had a huge army and an ungodly number of relatively modern tanks (T70’s if I recall). They turned out to be irrelevant. If Iraq had had twice the number of tanks, it basically would have just meant that Coalition tank commanders would have had to shoot twice as many rounds. The coalition fought the largest tank battle in history without losing a single tank to enemy fire.
So I’m heavily discounting the size of some of the top militaries for that reason. North Korea’s military is looking a little long in the tooth, and China’s is better but a big chunk of the inventory is still made up of relatively old weapons.
But Japan has as modern a military as the U.S. They have crucial C&C assets like AWACS aircraft and Aegis cruisers, which as we found out were absolutely crucial in a modern war.
And I did limit my comments to the mission of Japan’s military - defending it from foreign invasion. Japan has no force projection capability (or very little, anyway), and so from that standpoint the UK’s and Russia’s military is ‘better’. But do you think the UK or Russia could successfully attack Japan? I don’t. I think only the U.S. could pull it off.
And if Japan ever does decide to become a fully-powered state with a normal military capable of force projection, all bets are off. With the amount of money Japan spends on the military now, it would rapidly rise to superpower status. And Japan could spend much more if it wanted to, because its economy is huge.
saynothingmuch:
How is Japanese involvement in peacekeeping actions any worse than German involvement? Or do you think that Germany shouldn’t have an army either?
Monty, your attitude is not appropiate for GD. Furthermore, as silly as it is to argue against something that someone only implied, it is even more silly to argue against it when the person has explicitly said that he was not serious.
Sam Stone, I’ve been mostly agreeing with you the whole time. I was merely asking a pretty narrow questions about the relative rankings of Japan, China, and Russia as defense spenders. Looking back that was ambiguous, without any direct references to the simple matter of defense budgets, which was what I was focussing.
I don’t think anyone other than the United States could invade Japan either. I’ve had strange arguments with people about this which were settled when it was revealed that the other fellow was saying that Japan could be given a run for its money in a land war if the other side could land all its troops. This is a big “if” - as big as the Sea of Japan. Nowadays even with this big if, I still think the JGSDF could beat most invading armies.
As to power projection, I think the Japanese do pretty well for themselves. It’s true that Japan isn’t one of the handful of countries with aircraft carriers, but it’s important to remember that a one-ship carrier fleet becomes a no-ship carrier fleet every few years when refit time inevitably comes around. This reduces the number of full-time carrier navies even further. So if the Japanese do decide to send a surface warfare detachment to the Indian Ocean, it will a significant addition to allied forces in the area. If they sent one of their four Escort Flotillas it would be an Aegis destroyer, an older area-defense ship comparable to the USN’s Kidd-class vessels, and about six other destroyers with a total of about 60 Harpoon missiles and perhaps a dozen Sea Hawk helicopters.
Would still like to see a ranking from Janes or someone. Again, my google searching hasn’t turned up a lot.
That said, compared with what I can find on her neighbors, Japan is at best a player but not exactly puny.
US and Russia are both much bigger. S. Korea has nearly 700,000 troops (not counting reserves that can be mobilized), N. Korean has over a million troops (okay, quality is low), China has a huge military (most of which are low quality but they do have some good troops), Taiwan has 240,000 active troops (not counting reserves that IIRC include every male under the age of 60).
Japan would rank number 6 in it’s sphere in terms of numbers with little in the way of callable reserves. Korea, Taiwan and perhaps Russia probably have equivalent equipment. Japan lacks both the equipment and the numbers to invade a neighbor (excepting Micronesia).
China guy, you’re approaching the evaluation the wrong way. Mere numbers don’t tell the story. By straight numbers, Iraq had one of the largest armies on the planet before the Gulf war. Lot of good that did them.
If you really want to evaluate the armed forces of a country, you have to play war games. You have to think about ways in which that military would be used, and how effective it would be in the role.
For example, Japan has 17 submarines, the oldest of which was built in 1983. They also have six more in various stages of construction. This probably gives Japan the most modern submarine fleet in the world. It also gives Japan the ability to enforce naval blockades.
Japan has satellite surveillance, Aegis cruisers, and AWACS aircraft.
In fact, Japan’s entire naval fleet is very new. Most of Japan’s ships were built in the 1980’s and 1990’s, which makes it more modern than the U.S. Navy.
Now look at China’s sub fleet. On paper, it’s huge. But most of China’s subs are obsolete ‘Romeo’ class submarines that probably can’t even sail, and the ones that can wouldn’t survive a modern battle for very long.
An analysis of China’s military will show that it has a small number of highly advanced, very capable assets, and a much, much larger number of essentially obsolete weapons. How it would fare in a modern war is an open question, but my guess is not very well.
That will change, though. China is in the midst of a massive modernization program. Ten years from now China may be a superpower.
So now that we’ve established that Japan has a significant military, do people think its a good idea that Koizumi rushed through legislation to have Japan assist in the war against terrorism?
My grandfather fought the Japanese in WW2 in Malaya, and I know what he’d be thinking… I, on the otherhand, lived in Osaka, and have been too exposed to Hello Kitty, Amuro Namie and Mr Donuts to think that Japan could ever really become the country it was.
Hemlock’s statement that Japan should take its rightful place as a nation which assists in international peacekeeping efforts and the like (including the current action) I think is a valid one. The current constitutional restraints reflect a world and particularly US solution to a culture and state of affairs in existence 60 years ago, and a form of “drafting punishment” - a consititution was drafted and imposed by the victor, forcing a renouciation of war upon the loser (something never imposed upon any other country, to my knowledge, and a major break from the Westphalian system of sovereignty). It is a constant reminder to the Japanese of their past: I think that enought time has passed. I do have to add however it doesn’t help my peace of mind that the Japanese keep messing with their history books…
I’m quite fond of much of Japanese society. I studied Okinawan Karate for years, and participated in a few cultural exchange programs. I quite like the people.
But still… There are some disturbing factors in Japanese society. There is still a martial tradition that’s quite strong, and a strong sense of honor. But it is a very insular society - one of the lowest immigration rates in the world. And it has often seen itself as a direct competitor of the United States, even in recent times. And as said above, the whitewashing of its role in the war is troubling. In my opinion, Japan has a risk of falling back into a relatively oppressive government. So I’m not really sure if I like the idea of a gigantic Japanese blue water navy, or a nuclear weapons program.
The Japanese are sending ships, big deal. It strikes me as kind of racist to assume that eventually the Japanese will return to what they were. Oh sure, there’s things about Japanese society that harken back to the bad old days (Of course, we don’t have those things here, so long as you don’t count things the KKK and other racist organizations.), but that doesn’t mean that they have to lead Japan down the of destruction like they did once before. After all, Japan’s defeat in WW II brought dishonor to the nation, so I’d think that the honorable thing for them to do would be to stay out of a conflict unless they were provoked.
And really, everyone needs to have a dog in this fight. If the US loses this war and pulls out of the Mid-East, do you think that Bin Laden, et al will be content with that? Look at what happened to Europe after Rome fell, it immediately dissolved into the Dark Ages. Imagine what would happen today with no large centralized organizations to insure that things like nuclear reactors are at least somewhat properly maintained. We’re fighting for our survival here and we need all the help we can get, and the Japanese have behaved themselves for the past 50 odd years, so its safe to say that they’ve learned their lesson.
So, Dave; why do you think that Japan has not assisted in international peacekeeping efforts? Just because they refuse to shoot? There forces, when sent to assist in recent efforts, were sent into harm’s way without the convenient protection of being able to go in and kick ass.
Tuckerfan: Yeah, I’d be remiss if I didn’t point out that there is a strong sense of shame and dishonor amongst Japanese for what they did in WWII and before. But that will slowly fade as the younger generation grows up.
In the interest of regional stability, it makes sense that for Japan to formally be allowed to send combat troops on peace keeping missions, such blanket authorization be granted by Japan’s neighbors. Perhaps as well by an international body such as the UN or ASEAN. I believe it has to be more than just Japan changing it’s constitution and getting blessings from the US and/or Nato. After all, Japan’s neighbors were the victims in the past, and will be on the front line should Japan become an aggressor in the future. That said the neighbors need to have a say in such a major policy change.
No one wants to see China, Korea (North and South), Russia and Taiwan rearming to counter a preceived Japanese threat. That could also lead to increased military spending in SE Asia. Destabilization throughout the region is in no one’s best interest.
While the Japanese military is stronger than I thought at the beginning of the thread (I stand corrected, and maybe Monty with his military experience in Japan has some comparative numbers/analysis for S. Korea, N. Korea, Taiwan, China, Russia).
I think Japan should shoulder their part of global peacekeeping operations. However, we need to hear that from Japan’s neighbors as well.
Uh, Sam, that doesn’t mean that they’ll be more likely to go back to their old ways. What your saying is the equivilant to someone saying that since there are no longer any Americans alive who remember slavery the US is in danger of reverting back to a slaveholding society, or the Germans suddenly rediscovering a love of Nazism enmasse. Somehow, I don’t see that happening.
I’ve got to disagree with you on the above. This is just based on my limited experience living in Tokyo for three years. I only knew a few veterns, and all of them were proud to have served.
I also had far too many experiences speaking with recent college grads working in the corporate system. We would talk about WW2, and agree that it was terrible what happened. Dig a little deeper, and they would talk about how terrible Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, and truly not have a clue as to the militarism/aggressionist history of Japanese involvement in WW2. I hope other Dopers who were/are in Japan can share different experiences in general than I had.
Like when? I don’t challenge you - I don’t know. I heard that Japanese policemen were on a UN peacekeeping mission somewhere, but otherwise haven’t heard anything…
ChinaGuy - I talked with only a few Japanese citizens about WW2. Two discussions stick out in my memory:
an old woman with vivid memories of being in Tokyo, running into a park as a child with a mattress over her head during a firebombing air raid. She was very interesting: she seemed to know what the caper was with her government’s involvement in Asia;
a former tutor of mine, who said she was shocked when she got to university and learned of Japanese atrocities. The point of it is she didn’t learn until university…
No two distinct Capitalist-Democratic countries have ever gone to war with each other – it seems to be a key dynamic of this era. I guess it’s always possible there could be an exception to the rule at some point in the future but, IMHO, it’s unlikely in the extreme if we take history, a free press and the market into full account.
