Japan's Abe Takes Step to Enhance Military's Role

[kalu_miah]

I don't believe the US will allow Japan to develop its nukes, as such any attempt in nuclear development will be after dislodge the US force from Japan, in which case China would be in a position to stop any such development. Taking a page from the Israelis, China should make it unambiguous that if Japan is to develop nuclear weapon, China would conduct pre-emptive strike to neutralize such threat. That being said, due to its geographical limitation, the only possible way Japan can achieve credible second strike capability is to field a sizable SSBN forces, which will take decades, and that would give China plenty of time to respond.

And I agree with you that the key is to intensify the China-Japan rivalry but not resorting to actual war. That would facilitate the rise of ultra-nationalist in Japan, and put it in friction with the US. I don't think however that any action Japan take can or will eject the US out of Asia, but rather a slow declining US that will eventually find it unsustainable to remain.

I believe it is not impossible that the US and Japan will make a deal so Japan can develop nuclear triad under US nuke umbrella. Essentially the US's gradual disengagement (orderly retreat) I believe will take this shape, because the US would not want to see China threatening Japan, that would be irresponsible on the part of the US. In fact, I would say the clock is ticking for the US and Japan to proceed with this ASAP before China becomes too powerful to prevent this from happening.

I think the same will happen with South Korea, before the US finally withdraws from there.

So you are looking at both Japan and South Korea developing their nuclear triads under US umbrella, which will enable the US to withdraw without causing serious harm to its allies, from the US departure.

Why the US will allow it, because that is the least they can do to their long time allies. If we may remember, the professed US policy is to ensure global peace and stability and the US is currently on the scene because no one else is up to the job. So the US is more like a reluctant enforcer, but once locals become strong enough, I believe the US will be able to disengage and retreat, leaving a balance of sorts in place.

On China's part, I think Chinese strategists should look at this development as necessary evil, the price to pay for US departure and orderly retreat from East Asia. China will then be free to influence both of these nations with soft power and economic entanglement, just like it is doing with Taiwan, much more so than before, without opposition from pro-US lobby and political blocs. Of course China have no claim for same nationhood with these two countries, but with so much economic firepower, China should be able to make them as virtual and close allies, even though all are armed with nukes at each other. I guess its a funny world, but I find truth is always stranger than fiction.

 

[Zsari]

I believe it is not impossible that the US and Japan will make a deal so Japan can develop nuclear triad under US nuke umbrella. Essentially the US's gradual disengagement (orderly retreat) I believe will take this shape, because the US would not want to see China threatening Japan, that would be irresponsible on the part of the US. In fact, I would say the clock is ticking for the US and Japan to proceed with this ASAP before China becomes too powerful to prevent this from happening.

I think the same will happen with South Korea, before the US finally withdraws from there.

So you are looking at both Japan and South Korea developing their nuclear triads under US umbrella, which will enable the US to withdraw without causing serious harm to its allies, from the US departure.

Why the US will allow it, because that is the least they can do to their long time allies. If we may remember, the professed US policy is to ensure global peace and stability and the US is currently on the scene because no one else is up to the job. So the US is more like a reluctant enforcer, but once locals become strong enough, I believe the US will be able to disengage and retreat, leaving a balance of sorts in place.

On China's part, I think Chinese strategists should look at this development as necessary evil, the price to pay for US departure and orderly retreat from East Asia. China will then be free to influence both of these nations with soft power and economic entanglement, just like it is doing with Taiwan, much more so than before, without opposition from pro-US lobby and political blocs. Of course China have no claim for same nationhood with these two countries, but with so much economic firepower, China should be able to make them as virtual and close allies, even though all are armed with nukes at each other. I guess its a funny world, but I find truth is always stranger than fiction.

Since when does US place the security of its allies over its own security interest? If Japan possesses nuclear warhead, who is to say it will not at some point in the distant future lob one to the US to avenge for Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Besides, US even without a military presence in Asia, would want both South Korea & Japan to depend on its military industrial complex rather than their own.

@kalu_miah @Nihonjin1051

if someone know who is it Hideo Itokawa, and his achievement, and JAXA ability to launch satellite with their indigenous rocket H-IIA and H-IIB then nobody will argue about Japan capability to producing land based ICBM and i know Japan has ability to switch themselves into nuclear armed state mode if the need is arises. But as right now, they enjoying themselves with Nuclear umbrella protection from USA.

Japan is too small, too narrow, and too close to China for its land based nuclear missiles to be meaningful. It needs submarine based nuclear weapon to utilize the vast Pacific to its advantage in order to have a true 2nd strike capability.

 

[Aepsilons]

@kalu_miah @Nihonjin1051

if someone know who is it Hideo Itokawa, and his achievement, and JAXA ability to launch satellite with their indigenous rocket H-IIA and H-IIB then nobody will argue about Japan capability to producing land based ICBM and i know Japan has ability to switch themselves into nuclear armed state mode if the need is arises. But as right now, they enjoying themselves with Nuclear umbrella protection from USA.

Hi Ms. @madokafc ,
Itokawa Hideo was considered the father of modern Japanese rocketry and yes you are right in that he contributed to JAXA research (pencil rocket).

Let me tell you about our current research and capability:

Development of the new M-V rocket was begun in 1989 and first launched in 1995. The M-V is more than twice the weight of the M-3S-II (130,000 kg vs. 61,700 kg). It will is able to place a 1,800 kg into low earth orbit or inject a 300-400-kg payload into space for planetary surveys.Apparently, the M-V would be capable of intercontinental range as a ballistic missile.

If converted to ballistic missile applications, the M-V would seem likely to give Japan an ICBM roughly equivalent to the MX Peacekeeper, and the J-1 would probably give Japan an ICBM surpassing the performance of a Minuteman III.

 

[kalu_miah]

Since when does US place the security of its allies over its own security interest? If Japan possesses nuclear warhead, who is to say it will not at some point in the distant future lob one to the US to avenge for Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Besides, US even without a military presence in Asia, would want both South Korea & Japan to depend on its military industrial complex rather than their own.

Japan is too small, too narrow, and too close to China for its land based nuclear missiles to be meaningful. It needs submarine based nuclear weapon to utilize the vast Pacific to its advantage in order to have a true 2nd strike capability.

To avenge is a very poor motivation for any action. What would Japan gain from this? Instead it could loose its own existence while trying to avenge. So I would guess this to be very much of an unlikely scenario.

Besides, consider the situation, the US has just withdrawn bases from Japan and South Korea, after both have developed nuclear triads. Does that mean an end of formal mutual defense treaty alliance? I don't think so. I believe it will just mean that nuclear triads have taken the place of physical US bases to provide them with a degree of comfort as an assurance of their sovereignty. But it will not mean end of relationship at all, in fact I would say defense industries of these nations would still be very much intertwined. So dependence will continue as before.

It will however open up opportunity for both Japan and South Korea to breath free, inhale the fresh air of sovereignty for the first time and spread their wings on a journey towards their own national destiny, with more freedom from the influence of the big brother. This changed situation will also allow these two nations to pursue closer relations with China and other nations than what was possible before.

 

[UKBengali]

To avenge is a very poor motivation for any action. What would Japan gain from this? Instead it could loose its own existence while trying to avenge. So very much of an unlikely scenario.

Besides, consider the situation, the US has just withdrawn bases from Japan and South Korea, after both have developed nuclear triads. Does that mean an end of formal mutual defense treaty alliance? I don't think so. I believe it will just mean that nuclear triads have taken the place of physical US bases to provide them with a degree of comfort as an assurance of their sovereignty. But it will not mean end of relationship at all, in fact I would say defense industries of these nations would still be very much intertwined. So dependence will continue as before.

It will however open up opportunity for both Japan and South Korea to breath free, inhale the fresh air of sovereignty for the first time and spread their wings on a journey towards their own national destiny, with more freedom from the influence of the big brother. This changed situation will also allow these two nations to pursue closer relations with China and other nations than what was possible before.

Why should US care about defence treaties if it is forced to leave Asia?

By leaving the continent it is saying we cannot protect you anymore.

US will be finished as a superpower and would then mind its own business pretty much.

 

[Aepsilons]

To avenge is a very poor motivation for any action. What would Japan gain from this? Instead it could loose its own existence while trying to avenge. So very much of an unlikely scenario.

Besides, consider the situation, the US has just withdrawn bases from Japan and South Korea, after both have developed nuclear triads. Does that mean an end of formal mutual defense treaty alliance? I don't think so. I believe it will just mean that nuclear triads have taken the place of physical US bases to provide them with a degree of comfort as an assurance of their sovereignty. But it will not mean end of relationship at all, in fact I would say defense industries of these nations would still be very much intertwined. So dependence will continue as before.

It will however open up opportunity for both Japan and South Korea to breath free, inhale the fresh air of sovereignty for the first time and spread their wings on a journey towards their own national destiny, with more freedom from the influence of the big brother. This changed situation will also allow these two nations to pursue closer relations with China and other nations than what was possible before.

No way in hell does the average (majority) of Japanese people think this way. Maybe in the warped fantasy of extremists.

Why should US care about defence treaties if it is forced to leave Asia?

By leaving the continent it is saying we cannot protect you anymore.

US will be finished as a superpower and would then mind its own business pretty much.

They won't be leaving Asia-Pacific in the foreseeable future.

 

[kalu_miah]

Why should US care about defence treaties if it is forced to leave Asia?

By leaving the continent it is saying we cannot protect you anymore.

US will be finished as a superpower and would then mind its own business pretty much.

Because, I believe even after base withdrawals the US will keep both nations as allies for a length of time, till they get closer to China and decide to leave the US led alliance of nations. In the absence of a war, things will happen gradually in a series of small steps in my opinion.

US will still lead the West, which will have more than a billion people and the West in turn will have significant influence on Latin American (600 million by 2050) and Christian part of Sub-saharan Africa (633 million by 2025):
List of countries by past and future population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christianity in Africa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@tranquilium in an earlier post mentioned this same point that Britain's fall from super power status will be similar to the US's fall. But I believe two cases are fundamentally different.

Here is why:
- Great Britain was a colonial empire, where most of the population the empire controlled were in colonies like British India, Malaya etc.

- the US is not like that at all, so loosing a few allied countries will not affect it the same way. So while tranquilium and you are both suggesting that the US will become a normal country, this will not happen
- the US, as leader of the Western alliance with significant influence on Latin America and Christian part of Sub-saharan Africa, will remain a formidable super power, an essential pole in the future multi-polar international order
- the difference from before will be that it will no longer be the lone super power or the predominant super power and will not be able to invade countries at will outside its spheres of influence mentioned above

I am sure Western strategists have been looking towards a future like this and have been preparing for such a future. I would say in conclusion that the position of the US and West in general looks fairly secure, because they still have a good chunk of the global population, a huge chunk of choice real estate (EU, North America and ANZ) of the planet and retain significant influence on two resource rich areas - Latin America and Southern half of Africa.

 

[Nike]

Since when does US place the security of its allies over its own security interest? If Japan possesses nuclear warhead, who is to say it will not at some point in the distant future lob one to the US to avenge for Hiroshima & Nagasaki? Besides, US even without a military presence in Asia, would want both South Korea & Japan to depend on its military industrial complex rather than their own.



Japan is too small, too narrow, and too close to China for its land based nuclear missiles to be meaningful. It needs submarine based nuclear weapon to utilize the vast Pacific to its advantage in order to have a true 2nd strike capability.

Hey where you think Japan would pointing their missile at? Beijing or Washington DC? they don't need SSBN capability at all, if they just intended to pointing some of their missile at China. Just a fleet of fighter with cruise missile ability and coupled with land based ICBM will give them a huge deterrence against China. then Zero sum game will be started if they started to rearming themselves with cruise missile, but i don't think they will do that in near future. After all they don't wanna to escalate things quickly

 

[xunzi]

Japanese remilitarization will ultimately challenge the US, not China. While a weakened US would extend its leash on Japan, and even asking for some hand outs, it will however never let go of that leash, at least willingly. Of course what prevents any Chinese military action against Japan to take place is exactly that leash. So any means to facilitate the rise of Japanese ultra-nationalism will in the long run be in China's favor.

We have thought of that except it is very DANGEROUS gamble that re-militarization Japanese will re-oriented toward East Asia co-prosperity sphere, instead of strengthen the US's led alliance system in time when the US' led alliance is weaken to its core. It is certainly possible for Japan to turn its back as they have a history of allying with the strong power of the time, such as British Empire in WWI, Nazi Germany in WWII, and USA in post-WWII. However, I doubt they change its alliance pledge. The reason is obvious. Japan simply don't possess enough independent strength to disobey the US. There will be consequence and price for Japan betraying the alliance, such as those G7. Japan is very much reliant on the West alliance for their wealth and prestige. Japan is a very "face" country.. They will not defy the US for fear of abandonment and retaliation.

 

[Zsari]

Hey where you think Japan would pointing their missile at? Beijing or Washington DC? they don't need SSBN capability at all, if they just intended to pointing some of their missile at China. Just a fleet of fighter with cruise missile ability and coupled with land based ICBM will give them a huge deterrence against China. then Zero sum game will be started if they started to rearming themselves with cruise missile, but i don't think they will do that in near future. After all they don't wanna to escalate things quickly

Land based system would not survive a first strike, consider Japan has very little land. If you want to achieve MAD, then you'll have to have enough nuclear strike capability left after the 1st pre-emptive strike.

To avenge is a very poor motivation for any action. What would Japan gain from this? Instead it could loose its own existence while trying to avenge. So I would guess this to be very much of an unlikely scenario.

Besides, consider the situation, the US has just withdrawn bases from Japan and South Korea, after both have developed nuclear triads. Does that mean an end of formal mutual defense treaty alliance? I don't think so. I believe it will just mean that nuclear triads have taken the place of physical US bases to provide them with a degree of comfort as an assurance of their sovereignty. But it will not mean end of relationship at all, in fact I would say defense industries of these nations would still be very much intertwined. So dependence will continue as before.

It will however open up opportunity for both Japan and South Korea to breath free, inhale the fresh air of sovereignty for the first time and spread their wings on a journey towards their own national destiny, with more freedom from the influence of the big brother. This changed situation will also allow these two nations to pursue closer relations with China and other nations than what was possible before.

Yes avenge sounds rather far fetched, but US foreign policy has always been on the border of paranoia. Anything it can't control is a threat, an nuclear armed Japan who it can no longer dictate will raise all kinds of red flag for strategic planners in Washington.

And remember we are talking about a much weakened US, not the one of today, at least in relative terms if it is to give up all holdings in Asia. That US would be in no position to act militarily against China, especially not in the mood to entertain a tail that wags the dog. I don't foresee a US that can recognized the unsustainbility of its global presence, and make long term plan for a graceful exit. That's never how empire works. It will only do so when it run out of options.

 

[Zsari]

We have thought of that except it is very DANGEROUS gamble that re-militarization Japanese will re-oriented toward East Asia co-prosperity sphere, instead of strengthen the US's led alliance system in time when the US' led alliance is weaken to its core. It is certainly possible for Japan to turn its back as they have a history of allying with the strong power of the time, such as British Empire in WWI, Nazi Germany in WWII, and USA in post-WWII. However, I doubt they change its alliance pledge. The reason is obvious. Japan simply don't possess enough independent strength to disobey the US. There will be consequence and price for Japan betraying the alliance, such as those G7. Japan is very much reliant on the West alliance for their wealth and prestige. Japan is a very "face" country.. They will not defy the US for fear of abandonment and retaliation.

When the US still dominates, yes, Japan does not possess the strength to challenge it. But US will not be forever strong. You are talking about a Japan that switch alliance with the full might of the US still in position, and I'm talking about a Japan that has removed its bond from a much weakened US and try to reform its co-prosperity sphere with ultra-nationalist in the driving seat. Dangerous yes, but overall would be positive development for China.

 

[Nike]

Land based system would not survive a first strike, consider Japan has very little land. If you want to achieve MAD, then you'll have to have enough nuclear strike capability left after the 1st pre-emptive strike.



Yes avenge sounds rather far fetched, but US foreign policy has always been on the border of paranoia. Anything it can't control is a threat, an nuclear armed Japan who it can no longer dictate will raise all kinds of red flag for strategic planners in Washington.

And remember we are talking about a much weakened US, not the one of today, at least in relative terms if it is to give up all holdings in Asia. That US would be in no position to act militarily against China, especially not in the mood to entertain a tail that wags the dog. I don't foresee a US that can recognized the unsustainbility of its global presence, and make long term plan for a graceful exit. That's never how empire works. It will only do so when it run out of options.

Japan is not as cramped as you think, their country is still more bigger in land masses than Vietnam or Bangladesh. If you had visited Japan you will not say that. They've just cramped their people in Kanto area.

 

[Aepsilons]

Japan is not as cramped as you think, their country is still more bigger in land masses than Vietnam or Bangladesh. If you had visited Japan you will not say that. They've just cramped their people in Kanto area.

That's true. We are a considerably large country, in regards to land mass and population.

Let's compare Japan to other medium-sized countries:

Japan: population = 128 million, area = 377,944 square km

Germany: population = 81 million, area = 357, 000 square km

Vietnam: population = 78 million, area = 331, 000 square km

United Kingdom: population = 63 million, area = 243, 000 square km

Poland: population = 39 million, area = 312, 000 square km

 

[Zsari]

Japan is not as cramped as you think, their country is still more bigger in land masses than Vietnam or Bangladesh. If you had visited Japan you will not say that. They've just cramped their people in Kanto area.

Size is relative, in terms of nuclear exchange, Japan is too small. And I would say the same about Vietnam as well, too narrow, too small.

 

[KAL-EL]

They won't be leaving Asia-Pacific in the foreseeable future.

No, they won't be.. To think otherwise is pure deluded fantasy.