Japan plans to remilitarize at lightning speed

[Viet]

There was no conflict with China that wanted to expell US military from South East Asia, and there was no problem with China on Vietnam got united North and South. But, there might be concerns on the Chinese side if Vietnam wanted to dominate the whole of Indo-China or South East Asia, which was seem as the unpredictable redraw of geopolitical map on large scale on south of China, China wouldnt be happy.

Vietnam military campaign against hostile Cambodia was supported and financed by the Soviet’s money and military. Plus by the warshaw pact. You seriously think they would do it to support Vietnam territorial expansion? Nonsense.

 

[etylo]

Vietnam military campaign against Cambodia was supported and financed by the Soviet’s money and military. Plus by the warshaw pact. You seriously think they would do it to support Vietnam territorial expansion? Nonsense.

Still, invason of cambodia, an ally of China, never knew what was next.

 

[Viet]

Still, invason of cambodia, an ally of China, never knew what was next.

That’s not us, they are the one who started the war one year earlier. The invasion came much later. Yes we know, they were chinese ally. chinese military equipment plus PLA military advisers were stationed. Previously thru Ccp collusion with the US which raised the prospect of a 2-front war. What would you do if we were us?

 

[etylo]

That’s not us, they are the one who started the war one year earlier. The invasion came much later. Yes we know, they were chinese ally. chinese military equipment plus PLA military advisers were stationed. Previously thru Ccp collusion with the US which raised the prospect of a 2-front war. What would you do if we were us?

What I read is that Vietnam was the aggressor and it was militarily allied with the Soviets, they have military bases in Vietnam at the time.

 

[Viet]

What I read is that Vietnam was the aggressor and it was militarily allied with the Soviets, they have military bases in Vietnam at the time.

Yes of course they remember we are the aggressor. The reality is Cambodia under Pol pot dreamed of return of the old days. They massacred own population except peasants because those were considered as useless. They massacred Viet settlers. They attacked Viet province’s committing massacres. They wanted to occupy southern Vietnam because they considered it as lands of historic Khmer empire.

Cambodia Conflicts with Vietnam

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[Stranagor]

Multipolar world instead of a unipolar dominated by one country. Regional powers working together to create balanced global relations. You’re literally making the argument why a one party dictatorship is better.

I do not argue it is better or worse. I just observe that it is the general inclination in East Asia - more so today than in the past three decades.

I do not see regional powers working together to balance out the hegemon. Most are engaged in bandwagoning or balancing.

Global hegemony would become tyrannical if there were no institutions, laws, conventions and a general framework. But, currently, there's a system in place.

In a multipolar world countries can balance each other, if one steps out of line they others can keep them in check.

In an ideal world, it may work. But, realistically, it is hard to achieve or maintain. One can hardly convince Ukrainians of the benefits of regional hegemony.

Same goes for Vietnam in the East Asian context.

Japan has effectively been neutered by the Americans militarily and economically. People usually aren’t threatened by eunuchs. If one country can shut down your economy and military whenever they want, you not a driving power. You’re a tool wielded by those with actual power.

Militarily, yes, it was. Economically, I do not think so. To be resource dependent is geography and geology, not a political decision. Japan happens to be a resource poor island state. Yet, it is economically more advanced than many resource extracting countries.

 

[Dark Sage]

Militarily, yes, it was. Economically, I do not think so. To be resource dependent is geography and geology, not a political decision. Japan happens to be a resource poor island state. Yet, it is economically more advanced than many resource extracting countries.

I think pinkies in their wet dreams always wish they could have done the same thing the US did to Japan.

 

[Yaoudelizard]

I do not argue it is better or worse. I just observe that it is the general inclination in East Asia - more so today than in the past three decades.

I do not see regional powers working together to balance out the hegemon. Most are engaged in bandwagoning or balancing.

Global hegemony would become tyrannical if there were no institutions, laws, conventions and a general framework. But, currently, there's a system in place.




In an ideal world, it may work. But, realistically, it is hard to achieve or maintain. One can hardly convince Ukrainians of the benefits of regional hegemony.

Same goes for Vietnam in the East Asian context.




Militarily, yes, it was. Economically, I do not think so. To be resource dependent is geography and geology, not a political decision. Japan happens to be a resource poor island state. Yet, it is economically more advanced than many resource extracting countries.

I would disagree, the current regulatory system was created and is enforced by the same people it’s supposed to police, you’re basically asking unelected police to police themselves. America routinely breaks UN resolutions as long as it benefited them, they invaded Iraq even though the UN was against it. They are the first to invoke the UNCLOS on other countries but are not signatories and routinely breaks it themselves. I can’t see how you can say the system is not corrupt with a straight face.

Japan’s economy is hamstrunged, just read the plaza accords, their economy has been stagnate since that has been signed. The Japanese literally can’t grow their economy unless the Americans allow it. That is the prerequisite for being a trusted “ally” of the United States.

 

[Stranagor]

I would disagree, the current regulatory system was created and is enforced by the same people it’s supposed to police, you’re basically asking unelected police to police themselves. America routinely breaks UN resolutions as long as it benefited them, they invaded Iraq even though the UN was against it. They are the first to invoke the UNCLOS on other countries but are not signatories and routinely breaks it themselves. I can’t see how you can say the system is not corrupt with a straight face.

The current system was created by the winners, naturally. Which included China (ROC) and the USSR.

Regardless of bad faith and violations, there's a framework in place. As for violations of UN resolutions, you need to look at it in an issue-specific way. Resolutions on Israel may be violated by a set of countries whereas those on North Korea by another set of countries.

Why violations? (Technically, they are not violations because the resolutions are non- binding) Because, apart from UNSC resolutions, UN resolutions are not really enforceable in a meaningful way apart from a trust on good faith. And you know which countries are on the UNSC.

The system is not perfect, including the UNSC. It is often dysfunctional, however, it still provides a lot of regimes that make our life easier, from aviation to behavior during war time.

Japan’s economy is hamstrunged, just read the plaza accords, their economy has been stagnate since that has been signed. The Japanese literally can’t grow their economy unless the Americans allow it. That is the prerequisite for being a trusted “ally” of the United States.

Indeed, some people argue the Plaza Accords were the underlying reason for Japan's stagnation/stagflation which lasted till Abenomics. Others, however, ascribe it to politically weak governments. Keep in mind that US forced not only Japan but also others such as West Germany and UK to sign similar accords, mainly involving currency appreciations vis a vis the USD.

I am not sure which coercive methods the US employed at the G5 meeting they had in 1085 since, in the early 80s, it was the US which objected France's suggestions to appreciate the USD whereas then US Treasury Secretary thought a strong USD proved strong US economy and prestige. Even before the US action, actually, Germany intervened by selling USD to help depreciate it value. I am not sure how happy Japan was with the decision, but, it was definitely not the US initially and solely.

I think Japan can make sovereign decisions but it, like any other country, does not make decisions in a vacuum. A game theory of cause-effect linkages play a role. They need to consider multiple factors. After all, it is a multi player game. US is strong, but not stupid to really go out and dictate. It will threaten on various ways, since every state seeks its own interests, but, if Japan thinks that the advantages of not giving heed to US demands outweighs that of disadvantages, it will simply not heed. It's all about cost-benefit calculation.

I believe this the case with US military presence. Or it was with the Plaza Accord. In fact, it benefitted immensely with the US willingness to share tech and know-how during its economic assent. Of course, the US too benefitted.

 

[Yaoudelizard]

The current system was created by the winners, naturally. Which included China (ROC) and the USSR.

Regardless of bad faith and violations, there's a framework in place. As for violations of UN resolutions, you need to look at it in an issue-specific way. Resolutions on Israel may be violated by a set of countries whereas those on North Korea by another set of countries.

Why violations? (Technically, they are not violations because the resolutions are non- binding) Because, apart from UNSC resolutions, UN resolutions are not really enforceable in a meaningful way apart from a trust on good faith. And you know which countries are on the UNSC.

The system is not perfect, including the UNSC. It is often dysfunctional, however, it still provides a lot of regimes that make our life easier, from aviation to behavior during war time.



Indeed, some people argue the Plaza Accords were the underlying reason for Japan's stagnation/stagflation which lasted till Abenomics. Others, however, ascribe it to politically weak governments. Keep in mind that US forced not only Japan but also others such as West Germany and UK to sign similar accords, mainly involving currency appreciations vis a vis the USD.

I am not sure which coercive methods the US employed at the G5 meeting they had in 1085 since, in the early 80s, it was the US which objected France's suggestions to appreciate the USD whereas then US Treasury Secretary thought a strong USD proved strong US economy and prestige. Even before the US action, actually, Germany intervened by selling USD to help depreciate it value. I am not sure how happy Japan was with the decision, but, it was definitely not the US initially and solely.

I think Japan can make sovereign decisions but it, like any other country, does not make decisions in a vacuum. A game theory of cause-effect linkages play a role. They need to consider multiple factors. After all, it is a multi player game. US is strong, but not stupid to really go out and dictate. It will threaten on various ways, since every state seeks its own interests, but, if Japan thinks that the advantages of not giving heed to US demands outweighs that of disadvantages, it will simply not heed. It's all about cost-benefit calculation.

I believe this the case with US military presence. Or it was with the Plaza Accord. In fact, it benefitted immensely with the US willingness to share tech and know-how during its economic assent. Of course, the US too benefitted.

The only countries keeping the UNSC in check are China and Russia with their vetos. The rest are basically United States and cronies of the United States. It’s essentially ran by 1 single block with little resistance from 2 lonely countries. The UNSC only has representatives from the Europe, North America, and east Asia. The Middle East, Africa and South America, South Asia has no representation. How is a system that excludes 3/4 of the world okay? What good is a system that can’t enforce its rules, American is so powerful it doesn’t need to listen to the rest of the world combined. Is the point of the system the keep the rest of the world in check while one country gets to be a tyrant whenever it wants?

Japan’s economy is tied in with the American economy, they can not not listen to America. The economic repercussions that American can bring to Japan is more anything thing the Japanese can do to America. The relationship is completely lob sided. They are being cucked and there is nothing they can do about it.

 

[Stranagor]

The only countries keeping the UNSC in check are China and Russia with their vetos. The rest are basically United States and cronies of the United States. It’s essentially ran by 1 single block with little resistance from 2 lonely countries.

That's a little dramatic for you to put that way, but remind that UNSC has only five permanent with veto power. Hence, one vote is as good as four combined. Decisions need unanimous agreement. At the UNSC, no such cronyism is required. Each check the other with their veto welding power. Russia and China do not necessarily represent all the nice things at the UNSC, by the way.

The UNSC only has representatives from the Europe, North America, and east Asia. The Middle East, Africa and South America, South Asia has no representation. How is a system that excludes 3/4 of the world okay?

For that purpose, it has non-permanent, rotation system. Although not fair, it is as close as it gets. By the way, I do not thing your good guys at the top, China and Russia, would be more willing, for example, to allow India in as another permanent member. Let's make it fairier by allowing second most populous country in the world in.

What good is a system that can’t enforce its rules, American is so powerful it doesn’t need to listen to the rest of the world combined.

At the UNSC, each is equally powerful. Outside, yes, the US is the most powerful.

UNSC is by design less functional, this is because most countries oppose to a world government with enforcement capacity. Hence, most UN resolutions are non - binding.

Is the point of the system the keep the rest of the world in check while one country gets to be a tyrant whenever it wants?

You have a very high opinion of the US capabilities. Looked from that perspective, China is doing in the SCS whatever it wants
Russia in Ukraine, whatever it wants. See. That's realpolitik.

Japan’s economy is tied in with the American economy, they can not not listen to America. The economic repercussions that American can bring to Japan is more anything thing the Japanese can do to America. The relationship is completely lob sided. They are being cucked and there is nothing they can do about it.

Japan is an export oriented country, hence, as one of the largest markets, it needs the US. But, funnily enough, Japan's largest export market is China, not the US. Then ASEAN. The EU. They are as much dependent on non- US markets.

If Japan sees fit, it will realign its policies, as they are now doing with remilitarization. You have a very high opinion of the US and conversely low opinion of the rest of the world.

In any case,any reads Japan's remilitarization as a sign of greater independence. It is good for the region.

 

[Yaoudelizard]

That's a little dramatic for you to put that way, but remind that UNSC has only five permanent with veto power. Hence, one vote is as good as four combined. Decisions need unanimous agreement. At the UNSC, no such cronyism is required. Each check the other with their veto welding power. Russia and China do not necessarily represent all the nice things at the UNSC, by the way.

Never said any members were good guys. Cronyism exists where you want it or not. Only China and Russia are independent, America, UK and France will always tow the line.

For that purpose, it has non-permanent, rotation system. Although not fair, it is as close as it gets. By the way, I do not thing your good guys at the top, China and Russia, would be more willing, for example, to allow India in as another permanent member. Let's make it fairier by allowing second most populous country in the world in.

Never said they were my guys. This is an example of why the current system is corrupt and unfair. The League or Nations can as replaced, why can’t the UN? A system where there’s a representative from each major region would be a much better system. Right now we have 5 members and 3 of them is NATO.

At the UNSC, each is equally powerful. Outside, yes, the US is the most powerful.

UNSC is by design less functional, this is because most countries oppose to a world government with enforcement capacity. Hence, most UN resolutions are non - binding.
You have a very high opinion of the US capabilities. Looked from that perspective, China is doing in the SCS whatever it wants
Russia in Ukraine, whatever it wants. See. That's realpolitik.

If UN resolutions are non binding and America can invade whoever they want, why can’t Russia? Why is west against it when they routinely do the same thing? America can push its foreign policy whenever they want but not other countries. Any push back against America and they are suddenly the axis of evil. WW3 is where we are going, if America keeps on pushing its foreign policy and expect no push back. This is where the current system is heading, and you say it’s working well.

Japan is an export oriented country, hence, as one of the largest markets, it needs the US. But, funnily enough, Japan's largest export market is China, not the US. Then ASEAN. The EU. They are as much dependent on non- US markets.

If Japan sees fit, it will realign its policies, as they are now doing with remilitarization. You have a very high opinion of the US and conversely low opinion of the rest of the world.

In any case,any reads Japan's remilitarization as a sign of greater independence. It is good for the region.

America controls Japan’s currency, it’s pegged to the dollar. Japanese industries are connected to America by the hip. America can make Japan do things that are detrimental to their markets even if they don’t want to.

 

[Stranagor]

Never said any members were good guys. Cronyism exists where you want it or not. Only China and Russia are independent, America, UK and France will always tow the line.

I do not see the logic here. At the UNSC, whatever resolution is passed, it means unanimous decision. For instance, they either supported or abstained resolutions on Libya in 2011. Again, resolution 1441 on Iraq, both voted in favor in 2002 whereas only France threatened a veto if the language of the resolution was not changed. In 2013, they vetoed three resolutions on Syria. Each power wielded veto power according to their interests. You can go and check their vetoing history.

Never said they were my guys. This is an example of why the current system is corrupt and unfair. The League or Nations can as replaced, why can’t the UN? A system where there’s a representative from each major region would be a much better system. Right now we have 5 members and 3 of them is NATO.

Ideally, yes. A better system can be imagined. But this is what we have now, and it is the best possible at the moment. Better than anarchy.

If UN resolutions are non binding and America can invade whoever they want, why can’t Russia? Why is west against it when they routinely do the same thing? America can push its foreign policy whenever they want but not other countries. Any push back against America and they are suddenly the axis of evil. WW3 is where we are going, if America keeps on pushing its foreign policy and expect no push back. This is where the current system is heading, and you say it’s working well.

So, you want Russia to add more lands? Because I did not see any other major power adding lands ever since the UN regime is established.

Well, Russia does what wants, as well. When the USSR got bogged down in Afghanistan, US supported resistance. When US failed nation building in Afghanistan, Russia supported resistance.

Same as in Syria. Russia intervened. In the Caucasus, Chechnya and Dagestan, Russia rained free, carped bombed, levelled entire cities. If one person is found to be killing Russian soldiers, his entire family was wiped out.

Russia has always seen Central Asia as its backyard.

You see, your guys, too, have all the right to do whatever they want. Now, they are doing what they want, invading a neighboring country. What else do you want?

America controls Japan’s currency, it’s pegged to the dollar. Japanese industries are connected to America by the hip. America can make Japan do things that are detrimental to their markets even if they don’t want to.

Are you educated, or just bitter? You have lots of uneducated opinion.

I have proven that Plaza Accord was not only a Japan thing, was not even initially a US idea because they preferred strong currency, which made US exports expensive and Japanese and German exports cheap.

About currency pegging:

Do you know that over 60 currencies are pegged to the USD, including Chinese RMB? And US constantly complains about that because artificially pegging a currency gives you advantage in trade with the US? In fact, Plaza Accord was all about this pegging?

You see, Japan does what it sees fit to it's economic interests, and keeps Yen pegged and devalued. This helps with exports while making imports more expensive.

 

[kris]

View attachment 906500

Japan economy is the 3rd largest; but China GDP is more than 4x as much as that of Japan.
When Japan commit more fund for military, how much left for the R&D expenditure etc?

Japan's strength isn't with numbers. It's with quality and technology.
Not to forget Japan's size is very small in comparison to China.

it will be very difficult, I dont see US really loosening the shackles on Japan unless like US collapses and then withdraws its military from the island. I cant imagine US will let Japan develop nukes.

Japan is a leader in developing nuclear reactors.
I find it difficult to believe if they don't have tech to make weapons grade nuclear fission material.
Making a N-Bomb should be a cake walk for them

 

[大汉奸柳传志]

nothing goes on in Japan at lightning speed, the country still uses fax machines and floppy disks in many work places

​