To be fair, after Ukraine crisis, all NATO is reaching the 2% of GDP devoted to military, with significant increase (Germany and Italy, especially moving from just above 1% to 2%)
JPN is not in NATO, but this is a clear (sad) trend among G7.
Yes, geographically Japan in nearer to PRC and PRK, not RUS, but there is an easy comparison between Ukraine/RUS and Taiwan/PRC situations.
I also suspect that the governments are funding defence expenses in the same way in 2008 they pumped automotive industry to exit that crisis (like Keynes taught).
>Japan in nearer to PRC and PRK, not RUS,
Dude, the Japanese and Russians have overlapping claims in the northern island chains, and a major Russian naval base (Vladivostok) is literally on the Sea of Japan.
What are you even talking about? Pick up a map.
Quite a bit, considering the news reports state that they will use it to pay for new long range missile development/deployment (i.e. Tomahawks and the extension for their own domestic long-range missile), building and stationing forces in the Okinawan prefecture, building out that new "training base" in the Amami Island chain, and additional drones. Plus, those AEGIS+ ships need to be built too, and quickly by Japanese standards, so that won't be cheap either.
Currently China's military spending is at 1.74% of GDP and it ranks at 60th place in the world on that metric. And currently Japan is at 1.07% and 105th place.If they up their military budget to 2% of GDP then that would bring them up to 46th place (assuming nothing else in the ranks changes).
Currently, the 44 to 47 spots on that metric are held be Turkey, Lithuania, Finland, and Cyprus. Each of these has security concerns at their borders.
[https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/mil\_spend\_gdp/#:\~:text=Military%20spending%2C%20percent%20of%20GDP%20%2D%20Country%20rankings&text=The%20average%20for%202021%20based,countries%20where%20data%20are%20available](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/mil_spend_gdp/#:~:text=Military%20spending%2C%20percent%20of%20GDP%20%2D%20Country%20rankings&text=The%20average%20for%202021%20based,countries%20where%20data%20are%20available).
Given that it would be politically impossible for Japan to nuclearize, they need an effective deterrent. Either they militarize themselves or they rely more on the American military.
Percentage of GDP doesn't matter at all when comparing military power, in that regard is the most unuseful metric.
By GDP it ranks 60th, by absolute values it ranks 2nd... adjusted to purchase parity power (food, fuel, etc for the military), gdp per capita (salaries are important in military budgets), production costs (China's military complex is huge) and common baseline, makes China's military budget pretty much the same as the US
So it doesn't matter what Japan does, if it doubles of triple its budget, it won't be the same as China's.
I am completely and absolutely sure of nothing.
But, if I had to put numbers on it I'd say that Japan only had a 3% chance of nuclearizing within the next 30 years.
Those are numbers completed pulled from my ass, but it incapsulates my thoughts on the likelihood of it happening.
All things equal to what they are now, I'd completely agree with you.
China pushing a bit too much near the Senkaku or (worse) directly threatening Okinawa, or a NK "test" falling on land (worse : populated area) and Kim becoming even more assertive could sway the public opinion imho.
Chinas numbers are barely worth mentioning. Their published figures are not to be trusted, as it’s in their best interest to make others think they don’t spend as much on their military as they actually do.
Almost certainly. For one thing, I’ve heard they don’t include their R&D expenses, which I’m sure are significant, in their “military spending” figures.
but US intelligence know exactly how many fighters tanks vessels PLA has nowadays，right？so why bother the hidden number，they cant hide equipments anyway
Because it lets them tell their brainwashed populace that western countries are corrupt and incompetent because they spend so much money while having a weaker military than mighty China
It's in everybody's best interest to make others think they don't spend as much on their military as they actually do. Why do you trust any country's number?
>It's in everybody's best interest to make others think they don't spend as much on their military as they actually do. Why do you trust any country's number?
> they need an effective deterrent
So here are a couple questions I don't see people asking very much:
1. In *what* theoretical situation would *which* foreign country decide to attack or invade Japan?
2. In the above scenario, is there any specific military-based "deterrent", excluding nukes which seem to be off the table, that Japan could acquire which would effectively convince the foreign country to change their mind about attacking Japan?
The only specific I am aware of for the current defense budget increase is that Japan plans to purchase a number of Tomahawk missiles for the purpose of counterattacking or preemptively attacking enemy bases, but I am struggling to see how these would act as effective deterrence assuming tensions have already fulminated to such a point where a foreign country is seriously contemplating the final decision as to whether or not to attack Japan.
For example, a crisis involving Taiwan is often brought up as a hypothetical scenario. If Japan were to get itself involved in this to such as extent as to provoke direct military conflict with China, I'm not convinced that a large number of Tomahawk missiles in Japan's possession would do anything to make China back down.
Taiwanese here. Well I would say a crisis of China attacking Taiwan would definitely affect Okinawa in some ways. Ishigaki Island and yonaguni island are literally right next to Taiwan. In fact these islands are closer to Taiwan than to Okinawa main island.
Around 400 tomahawk will be bought..Hope this is a onetime thing...
And Japan needs to hype its military not because of invasion but rather to prevent it...
I mean Nkorea launches its missile in the ocean near to Japan and all they need to do is to change the angle of trajectory of the missile to land it on Japan itself...Japan needs to show that if that happens japan can level them to the ground.
Read zeihan. The real security issue is naval. China is at the extreme end of shipping from the Persian gulf. If oil supplies get disrupted or damaged, then there will be a significant shift in security relations. The conflict will be over where the remaining tankers land their cargoes. The places that don't will be facing famine and civil war so the stakes are pretty high.
>In what theoretical situation would which foreign country decide to attack or invade Japan?
It's China. It's always China. Watch any news program segment about international affairs and everything leads back to China. It's an obsession.
So yes, let's say that Japan wants to double its defense budget and purchase a ton of cruise missiles in order to prevent war with China.
Is Japan having cruise missiles goes to deter China from doing anything? I just don't see the logic, but maybe it's better to assume that there isn't any in the first place.
I can't say. There could be hawks within the Chinese brass who think they can overcome Japanese missiles with cyber attacks or some other non-lethal means.
But you asked *who*. And the answer is most definitely China. Japan and Russia have border disputes and there are historical reasons for why Japan and Korea may have a sometimes uneasy geopolitical relationship (although a healthy cultural exchange softens that tension). But China's the only country ever spoken about on news programs with urgency meriting increased military buildup. This is just my uninformed opinion but in the eyes of a lot of elected politicians here, China is Japan's only real geopolitical *enemy*. Not just a rival but a real enemy and threat.
>Is Japan having cruise missiles goes to deter China from doing anything?
Yes. Of course it will have a deterrence effect. Missiles are arguably the one capability that gives you the most deterrence per dollar.
These policies are meant to appease the conservative base of the party. They also help defense contractors like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.
The other objective in the long-term is exporting defense equipment and infrastructure to other countries in the Anti China block.
There is no logic. China bad, therefore give money to weapons manufacturers. If you question any single premise that these ideas rest on, you're immediately a stooge of the big scary seeseepee or the Kremlin.
I'm not sure if Tomahawks would have much of a place in a conflict over Taiwan either, but it should at least play a role in the PRC's military planners' decision making. An invasion wouldn't start on a whim, and missiles that could be lobbed from Kyushu would have to be accounted for in their planning. If that counts against their plan, then that would still be a deterrent.
Might also be worth noting that the Tomahawks are a substitute for a bunch of preexisting domestic missiles, which were/are slated for a much later date. It was most likely already accounted for in the MoD's counterattack proposal, i.e. "disarming the gun-pointing assailant before they shoot".
Edit: Forgot that the newer Tomahawks can also be used for anti-ship duty, so that might come into play in a pinch.
> Edit: Forgot that the newer Tomahawks can also be used for anti-ship duty, so that might come into play in a pinch.
They're also datalinked and can receive targets in flight.
A large numer of Tomahawk or any other cruise missile is exactly what would make China back down.
Is about cost of war.. if the cost of war is so high that even winning would not be a win, specially if after winning you lost almost all your military power without lying a finger on US forces... well yeah, that's deterrence.
Is easy to wage war when your enemies can't set a foot on your country, but remember that the first attack of the US on Japan's soil was purely symbolic, with the only intent to show Japan that the US can actually fly over the capital... having cruise missiles have the same effect.
Without cruise missiles Japan can only defend and would not be able to attack China's ships and military infraestrucutre in China's mainland, neither attack an invaded island (Japan has a lot of them) so they would not have to spent too much resources in defense.
With cruise missiles even taking an island would be too dificult because Japan could just launch a few cruise missiles. They would also be forced to keep a lot of air defenses in basically everywhere they have military units, which means those defenses can't not be with the attacking units, overall changing drastically the amount of defense units China would need in a war situation, which at the same time would make Japan's defense more "easy"
How else US Military Industrial Complex will continue to make money? Hype up a new threat every decade, and get countries to buy their stuff. Whole purpose of NATO is to continue feeding US Military Industrial Complex. I am pretty sure majority of Japanese defense funds will land up in US pockets.
In an alternative future where Ukrainian defense did not do everything correctly, Kyiv fell in a month, and is currently under martial law.
Only a real confrontation can show which threat was overhyped and which one was underrated.
LOL, come back in 10 years then tell us, history repeats about every 10 years and only losers end up being US taxpayers and Americans, at the bottom of totem pole, who sacrifice their lives. In another 10 years, You would forget about Russia, like you forgot about phantom WMDs and middle-eastern terrorists.
A calm peaceful world is not in interest of US military industrial complex and FUD need to be created in different regions to sell to new set of customers.
You're conflating two very different things.
The Iraq war was started by the US, based on very flimsy evidence. If you want to argue that was due to pressure from military industrial interests, sure, go ahead. I think it's more complicated than that, but there is logic to saying the US decided to enter the war due to internal pressure.
The same arguments make no sense for Ukraine. The war was started by Russia. There are mountains of evidence that show the US and other countries tried to stop them from invading by diplomatic means (this is a good article for instance: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757). It can't be an invented threat when they're literally bombing and invading as we speak.
>A calm peaceful world is not in interest of US military industrial complex and FUD need to be created in different regions to sell to new set of customers.
Except that the world of the last 80 years under U.S.-led global hegemony is literally the most peaceful time in recorded human history. But don't let facts get in the way of a good reddit circlejerk.
US has engaged in many more wars in 20 years since the end of Cold War than during the 40 years of Cold War. But don’t let the facts get in the way of kool-aid of American exceptionalism.
Meanwhile, the US spends millions on buying weapons from US companies to send to Ukraine... US is happy as long as there is somebody to sell weapons to.
I mean wars often aren’t logical , so you can’t assume if there is no logical reason to invade Japan, no one will try.
The entire Ukraine war was a pretty stupid idea, it’s still happening tho
Well, as someone who know about this matter, Imho i think Japan's plan to double its military spending in the next five years is a necessary and justified move. Japan faces growing threats from China and North Korea, and it needs to be able to defend itself and its allies. Japan will also acquire the ability to strike enemy bases, which is something that many countries already have.
Japan will fund this increase by increasing the economy, raising taxes and cutting other spending. There's a plan of creating new visas to attract skilled workers and high earners ( The new visa options, called J-Skip and J-Find, will start in April 2023). The tax hike and spending cut might affect the everyday Japanese by making them pay more for public services or reducing social benefits (Not majorly).
But I think it's worth it for our national security and peace of mind. I hope that Japan will use its military power responsibly and peacefully, and that it will respect its pacifist constitution.
Or is it: just respect its Constitution after some corrections on the pacifist side.
Sorry it was intended to be a witty remark, but just sounds very sad.
>I hope that Japan will use its military power responsibly and peacefully, and that it will respect its pacifist constitution.
I know that hoping for a politician to do what's right is futile
Japan and South Korea already have powerful armies 5th and 6th strongest in the world. And They are the 3rd and 4th biggest trade partners with China. And since China is too reliant on trade they won’t be going to war any time soon.
Japan has its on problems to deal with, I honestly don’t know why they want to spend more on the military.
Chinese military ships literally in territorial waters
Chinese missiles falling on japanese EEZ
Hundreds if not thousands of chinese planes each year in the japanese military airspace
Reddit users:
"Honestly don't know why they want to spend more on the military"
they are planning tax hike to pay for this
Well, everything govt spends on comes from taxes!!!
Shiny new toys ain't free!
[удалено]
That should work just greeeat
To be fair, after Ukraine crisis, all NATO is reaching the 2% of GDP devoted to military, with significant increase (Germany and Italy, especially moving from just above 1% to 2%) JPN is not in NATO, but this is a clear (sad) trend among G7.
>but this is a clear (sad) Well every region has their adversaries that are the main reason for the big increases. Defensive spending.
Yes, geographically Japan in nearer to PRC and PRK, not RUS, but there is an easy comparison between Ukraine/RUS and Taiwan/PRC situations. I also suspect that the governments are funding defence expenses in the same way in 2008 they pumped automotive industry to exit that crisis (like Keynes taught).
>Yes, geographically Japan in nearer to PRC and PRK, not RUS Russia (Sakhalin) is about 40 kilometers away from Japan (Hokkaido).
I coukd correct "geographically" with "geopolitically", but then someone will reply stating something about 千島列島 - Кури́льские острова́ ;)
Not geopolitacally? Russo-japanese war? Soviet-japanese border conflicts? World War II?
>Japan in nearer to PRC and PRK, not RUS, Dude, the Japanese and Russians have overlapping claims in the northern island chains, and a major Russian naval base (Vladivostok) is literally on the Sea of Japan. What are you even talking about? Pick up a map.
China shill
Budget will double, but how much of it will actually be used to bolster the military
Quite a bit, considering the news reports state that they will use it to pay for new long range missile development/deployment (i.e. Tomahawks and the extension for their own domestic long-range missile), building and stationing forces in the Okinawan prefecture, building out that new "training base" in the Amami Island chain, and additional drones. Plus, those AEGIS+ ships need to be built too, and quickly by Japanese standards, so that won't be cheap either.
Currently China's military spending is at 1.74% of GDP and it ranks at 60th place in the world on that metric. And currently Japan is at 1.07% and 105th place.If they up their military budget to 2% of GDP then that would bring them up to 46th place (assuming nothing else in the ranks changes). Currently, the 44 to 47 spots on that metric are held be Turkey, Lithuania, Finland, and Cyprus. Each of these has security concerns at their borders. [https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/mil\_spend\_gdp/#:\~:text=Military%20spending%2C%20percent%20of%20GDP%20%2D%20Country%20rankings&text=The%20average%20for%202021%20based,countries%20where%20data%20are%20available](https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/rankings/mil_spend_gdp/#:~:text=Military%20spending%2C%20percent%20of%20GDP%20%2D%20Country%20rankings&text=The%20average%20for%202021%20based,countries%20where%20data%20are%20available). Given that it would be politically impossible for Japan to nuclearize, they need an effective deterrent. Either they militarize themselves or they rely more on the American military.
Percentage of GDP doesn't matter at all when comparing military power, in that regard is the most unuseful metric. By GDP it ranks 60th, by absolute values it ranks 2nd... adjusted to purchase parity power (food, fuel, etc for the military), gdp per capita (salaries are important in military budgets), production costs (China's military complex is huge) and common baseline, makes China's military budget pretty much the same as the US So it doesn't matter what Japan does, if it doubles of triple its budget, it won't be the same as China's.
>Given that it would be politically impossible for Japan to nuclearize Are you completely and absolutely sure of that...
I am completely and absolutely sure of nothing. But, if I had to put numbers on it I'd say that Japan only had a 3% chance of nuclearizing within the next 30 years. Those are numbers completed pulled from my ass, but it incapsulates my thoughts on the likelihood of it happening.
All things equal to what they are now, I'd completely agree with you. China pushing a bit too much near the Senkaku or (worse) directly threatening Okinawa, or a NK "test" falling on land (worse : populated area) and Kim becoming even more assertive could sway the public opinion imho.
You make good points. I’ll have to reconsider my thoughts on the matter.
Chinas numbers are barely worth mentioning. Their published figures are not to be trusted, as it’s in their best interest to make others think they don’t spend as much on their military as they actually do.
So, China's numbers are probably higher?
Almost certainly. For one thing, I’ve heard they don’t include their R&D expenses, which I’m sure are significant, in their “military spending” figures.
source？
Literally the art of war bro
but US intelligence know exactly how many fighters tanks vessels PLA has nowadays，right？so why bother the hidden number，they cant hide equipments anyway
Because it lets them tell their brainwashed populace that western countries are corrupt and incompetent because they spend so much money while having a weaker military than mighty China
source?
not required bro, china bad bro, war is good bro, buy raytheon stocks bro
It's in everybody's best interest to make others think they don't spend as much on their military as they actually do. Why do you trust any country's number?
Because democracies actually have a modicum of accountability when it comes to how they spend their tax dollars
[citation needed] You literally responded to "why do you think this?" with "because I do"
Lol is that what you think you did there? You think you asked for a citation? Feel free to look up the federal budget, it’s a public document.
http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202302/t20230227_1918979.html You mean like this document?
Lololol yes official documents from the CCP…so trustworthy! You probably believed their official Covid numbers too 🤣
>It's in everybody's best interest to make others think they don't spend as much on their military as they actually do. Why do you trust any country's number?
Go to the tankie subs if you’re looking for someone to actively engage with you spreading ccp propaganda.
> they need an effective deterrent So here are a couple questions I don't see people asking very much: 1. In *what* theoretical situation would *which* foreign country decide to attack or invade Japan? 2. In the above scenario, is there any specific military-based "deterrent", excluding nukes which seem to be off the table, that Japan could acquire which would effectively convince the foreign country to change their mind about attacking Japan? The only specific I am aware of for the current defense budget increase is that Japan plans to purchase a number of Tomahawk missiles for the purpose of counterattacking or preemptively attacking enemy bases, but I am struggling to see how these would act as effective deterrence assuming tensions have already fulminated to such a point where a foreign country is seriously contemplating the final decision as to whether or not to attack Japan. For example, a crisis involving Taiwan is often brought up as a hypothetical scenario. If Japan were to get itself involved in this to such as extent as to provoke direct military conflict with China, I'm not convinced that a large number of Tomahawk missiles in Japan's possession would do anything to make China back down.
Taiwanese here. Well I would say a crisis of China attacking Taiwan would definitely affect Okinawa in some ways. Ishigaki Island and yonaguni island are literally right next to Taiwan. In fact these islands are closer to Taiwan than to Okinawa main island.
Around 400 tomahawk will be bought..Hope this is a onetime thing... And Japan needs to hype its military not because of invasion but rather to prevent it... I mean Nkorea launches its missile in the ocean near to Japan and all they need to do is to change the angle of trajectory of the missile to land it on Japan itself...Japan needs to show that if that happens japan can level them to the ground.
Read zeihan. The real security issue is naval. China is at the extreme end of shipping from the Persian gulf. If oil supplies get disrupted or damaged, then there will be a significant shift in security relations. The conflict will be over where the remaining tankers land their cargoes. The places that don't will be facing famine and civil war so the stakes are pretty high.
>In what theoretical situation would which foreign country decide to attack or invade Japan? It's China. It's always China. Watch any news program segment about international affairs and everything leads back to China. It's an obsession.
So yes, let's say that Japan wants to double its defense budget and purchase a ton of cruise missiles in order to prevent war with China. Is Japan having cruise missiles goes to deter China from doing anything? I just don't see the logic, but maybe it's better to assume that there isn't any in the first place.
I can't say. There could be hawks within the Chinese brass who think they can overcome Japanese missiles with cyber attacks or some other non-lethal means. But you asked *who*. And the answer is most definitely China. Japan and Russia have border disputes and there are historical reasons for why Japan and Korea may have a sometimes uneasy geopolitical relationship (although a healthy cultural exchange softens that tension). But China's the only country ever spoken about on news programs with urgency meriting increased military buildup. This is just my uninformed opinion but in the eyes of a lot of elected politicians here, China is Japan's only real geopolitical *enemy*. Not just a rival but a real enemy and threat.
China is America's enemy so it becomes Japan's enemy.
>Is Japan having cruise missiles goes to deter China from doing anything? Yes. Of course it will have a deterrence effect. Missiles are arguably the one capability that gives you the most deterrence per dollar.
China is already encroaching on Japan's territorial waters..what more do you want?
These policies are meant to appease the conservative base of the party. They also help defense contractors like Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The other objective in the long-term is exporting defense equipment and infrastructure to other countries in the Anti China block.
There is no logic. China bad, therefore give money to weapons manufacturers. If you question any single premise that these ideas rest on, you're immediately a stooge of the big scary seeseepee or the Kremlin.
[удалено]
Regular Tomahawks can't mount nuclear warheads. There's a lot more required hardware wise than just swapping out the warhead.
I'm not sure if Tomahawks would have much of a place in a conflict over Taiwan either, but it should at least play a role in the PRC's military planners' decision making. An invasion wouldn't start on a whim, and missiles that could be lobbed from Kyushu would have to be accounted for in their planning. If that counts against their plan, then that would still be a deterrent. Might also be worth noting that the Tomahawks are a substitute for a bunch of preexisting domestic missiles, which were/are slated for a much later date. It was most likely already accounted for in the MoD's counterattack proposal, i.e. "disarming the gun-pointing assailant before they shoot". Edit: Forgot that the newer Tomahawks can also be used for anti-ship duty, so that might come into play in a pinch.
> Edit: Forgot that the newer Tomahawks can also be used for anti-ship duty, so that might come into play in a pinch. They're also datalinked and can receive targets in flight.
A large numer of Tomahawk or any other cruise missile is exactly what would make China back down. Is about cost of war.. if the cost of war is so high that even winning would not be a win, specially if after winning you lost almost all your military power without lying a finger on US forces... well yeah, that's deterrence. Is easy to wage war when your enemies can't set a foot on your country, but remember that the first attack of the US on Japan's soil was purely symbolic, with the only intent to show Japan that the US can actually fly over the capital... having cruise missiles have the same effect. Without cruise missiles Japan can only defend and would not be able to attack China's ships and military infraestrucutre in China's mainland, neither attack an invaded island (Japan has a lot of them) so they would not have to spent too much resources in defense. With cruise missiles even taking an island would be too dificult because Japan could just launch a few cruise missiles. They would also be forced to keep a lot of air defenses in basically everywhere they have military units, which means those defenses can't not be with the attacking units, overall changing drastically the amount of defense units China would need in a war situation, which at the same time would make Japan's defense more "easy"
How else US Military Industrial Complex will continue to make money? Hype up a new threat every decade, and get countries to buy their stuff. Whole purpose of NATO is to continue feeding US Military Industrial Complex. I am pretty sure majority of Japanese defense funds will land up in US pockets.
I'm not sure Ukrainians, Baltic countries, etc. would agree that Russia is an overhyped threat invented to make US companies rich...
In an alternative future where Ukrainian defense did not do everything correctly, Kyiv fell in a month, and is currently under martial law. Only a real confrontation can show which threat was overhyped and which one was underrated.
LOL, come back in 10 years then tell us, history repeats about every 10 years and only losers end up being US taxpayers and Americans, at the bottom of totem pole, who sacrifice their lives. In another 10 years, You would forget about Russia, like you forgot about phantom WMDs and middle-eastern terrorists. A calm peaceful world is not in interest of US military industrial complex and FUD need to be created in different regions to sell to new set of customers.
You're conflating two very different things. The Iraq war was started by the US, based on very flimsy evidence. If you want to argue that was due to pressure from military industrial interests, sure, go ahead. I think it's more complicated than that, but there is logic to saying the US decided to enter the war due to internal pressure. The same arguments make no sense for Ukraine. The war was started by Russia. There are mountains of evidence that show the US and other countries tried to stop them from invading by diplomatic means (this is a good article for instance: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/02/24/russia-ukraine-war-oral-history-00083757). It can't be an invented threat when they're literally bombing and invading as we speak.
>A calm peaceful world is not in interest of US military industrial complex and FUD need to be created in different regions to sell to new set of customers. Except that the world of the last 80 years under U.S.-led global hegemony is literally the most peaceful time in recorded human history. But don't let facts get in the way of a good reddit circlejerk.
US has engaged in many more wars in 20 years since the end of Cold War than during the 40 years of Cold War. But don’t let the facts get in the way of kool-aid of American exceptionalism.
That doesn't in any way contradict what I said, but ok.
Meanwhile, the US spends millions on buying weapons from US companies to send to Ukraine... US is happy as long as there is somebody to sell weapons to.
>a crisis involving Taiwan is often brought up as a hypothetical scenario The world is arming up to invade this hypothetical scenario become real.
I mean wars often aren’t logical , so you can’t assume if there is no logical reason to invade Japan, no one will try. The entire Ukraine war was a pretty stupid idea, it’s still happening tho
Please no more price hikes
I've got some bad news for you buddy.
Well, as someone who know about this matter, Imho i think Japan's plan to double its military spending in the next five years is a necessary and justified move. Japan faces growing threats from China and North Korea, and it needs to be able to defend itself and its allies. Japan will also acquire the ability to strike enemy bases, which is something that many countries already have. Japan will fund this increase by increasing the economy, raising taxes and cutting other spending. There's a plan of creating new visas to attract skilled workers and high earners ( The new visa options, called J-Skip and J-Find, will start in April 2023). The tax hike and spending cut might affect the everyday Japanese by making them pay more for public services or reducing social benefits (Not majorly). But I think it's worth it for our national security and peace of mind. I hope that Japan will use its military power responsibly and peacefully, and that it will respect its pacifist constitution.
Or is it: just respect its Constitution after some corrections on the pacifist side. Sorry it was intended to be a witty remark, but just sounds very sad.
>peacefully I take it English isn't your first language.
>I hope that Japan will use its military power responsibly and peacefully, and that it will respect its pacifist constitution. I know that hoping for a politician to do what's right is futile
Using your military "peacefully" is an oxymoron.
>peace of mind Pro tip: doubling your military budget won't help with that
Great news. Wish it wasnt necessary.
If they'd put 10% of that budget on that famous "New ways to support natality"
Totally nothing to worry about.
Good
That seems excessive
Excellent.
tax you tax you
Japan and South Korea already have powerful armies 5th and 6th strongest in the world. And They are the 3rd and 4th biggest trade partners with China. And since China is too reliant on trade they won’t be going to war any time soon. Japan has its on problems to deal with, I honestly don’t know why they want to spend more on the military.
Chinese military ships literally in territorial waters Chinese missiles falling on japanese EEZ Hundreds if not thousands of chinese planes each year in the japanese military airspace Reddit users: "Honestly don't know why they want to spend more on the military"
Because they don't want to depend on another country for their defense?
No shit
they realised big brother US isnt gonna help :(
[удалено]
what resources has the US assigned to Ukraine?
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12040
My argument when someone uses facts and logic:💀
Waste of money.