Could japan be a major military power?

[vintec]

I do believe that at some point they will look to acquire aircraft to replace their F-15s, possbily the F-22 program or the F-35.

i thought japan is looking at developing northrop-mitsubishi F3 program? i may be outdated though as i'm not too active in here recently

 

[Big-E]

It would not be in the US's interest to remove the restrictions on Japan and to allow it to develop in to the major military player in the Pacific. The US would lose a valueable ally. Japan would become its competitor.

I think Japan (as a democracy) could be trusted to expand her military capabilities without conflicting too much with US interests. Japan is already an economic and resource competitor but we still get along just fine. It would probably benefit the US to expand Japan's capabilities therefore taking the burden off of the USN in the event of a crisis.

 

[ODYSSEUS]

although China is an emerge strong competitive power Japan certainly has the industrial infostructure to build future military capabilities, nevertheless Usa will play a significant role towards this direction, Since China and Usa are competitive powers i think that Usa would certainly have an interest in approving the expansion of Japanese military capabilities

 

[Big-E]

i think that Usa would certainly have an interest in approving the expansion of Japanese military capabilities

Your right and they have. The US just moved her troops out of Okinawa in the force restructure plan to give Japan more responsibility of her defense.

 

[KAPITAIN]

This is just my opinion based on some facts:

Japan is the fourth or fifth largest naval power in the world (correct me if im wrong), it has enlarged arliegh burke destroyers known as kongo class and they themselves are very powerful.

Japan doesnt spend alot of money on its millatery and lacks alot of types of ships that are needed for a strong global naval power ie an aircraft carrier and SSBN.

Japan has a good fleet for defence and thats all it is for hence why its called JMSDF japanese maritime self defeence force, i dont think japan has any ideas about becoming a world super power, its more an economic one, they learnt not only from hard experiance but also from the soivets that "he who has the most money wins".

Japans economy and currency value is alot better than the american infact its ranked number 2 according to the stock exchange in value (British ound making top).

If japan spent 40% of its GDP then i think maybe you could have a force as big if not bigger than america's but myself i realy cannot see that happening.

Just my view here

 

[Snayke]

With Japan's current budget, they can spend a maximum of 36.5% of the nation's GDP on military. That would be their ENTIRE budget which would mean no pay for non military employees, no government spending on public services, no road maintenance, etc, etc.

 

[Big-E]

This is just my opinion based on some facts:

Japan is the fourth or fifth largest naval power in the world (correct me if im wrong), it has enlarged arliegh burke destroyers known as kongo class and they themselves are very powerful.

Japan doesnt spend alot of money on its millatery and lacks alot of types of ships that are needed for a strong global naval power ie an aircraft carrier and SSBN.

Japan has a good fleet for defence and thats all it is for hence why its called JMSDF japanese maritime self defeence force, i dont think japan has any ideas about becoming a world super power, its more an economic one, they learnt not only from hard experiance but also from the soivets that "he who has the most money wins".

Japans economy and currency value is alot better than the american infact its ranked number 2 according to the stock exchange in value (British ound making top).

If japan spent 40% of its GDP then i think maybe you could have a force as big if not bigger than america's but myself i realy cannot see that happening.

Just my view here

Japan has a GDP of $4 trillion USDs. If she spent 11% she could match the US in defense spending, its really not that big of a jump if she wants to be a Super Power. Lets say a country like Russia however would have to spend 37.6% of GDP to match this level which would bankrupt the country. Japan, China and India are the only three that could hold a candle to this kind of spending.

 

[KAPITAIN]

Im a little jubious about india but in recent years we have seen alot of millatery build up, but she is a regional power but i still dont think she could match the us for any long period of time in defence spending.

Japan and china yes definatly however japan would rather spen its hard earned money on making life better in japan and also easier for the japanese people which is a good thing it does show they are not a war monger nation and only intend on using force if absolute nessasery.

I had a friend who was travveling on a train in tokyo the train arrived 7 minuets late into its destination (narita i think it was) anyway they had the company offical and drive not to mention the station staff come down to talk to the passenger's to appologise about the long delay.

Heck man im this country we wait for hours for a train that dont come and then were met with a mouth full of abuse.

 

[long live usa]

is japan really a pacifist nation?, look at thier history peace war peace war,but with their current generation im not sure,to me it seems like japan is becoming a place were the new generation spends all of its time going out to night clubs and yes it is a place for human trafficing the old generation of peaple that had high regards on honer seems to have died off but this is just my opinion

 

[Big-E]

Im a little jubious about india but in recent years we have seen alot of millatery build up, but she is a regional power but i still dont think she could match the us for any long period of time in defence spending.

Japan and china yes definatly however japan would rather spen its hard earned money on making life better in japan and also easier for the japanese people which is a good thing it does show they are not a war monger nation and only intend on using force if absolute nessasery.

I had a friend who was travveling on a train in tokyo the train arrived 7 minuets late into its destination (narita i think it was) anyway they had the company offical and drive not to mention the station staff come down to talk to the passenger's to appologise about the long delay.

Heck man im this country we wait for hours for a train that dont come and then were met with a mouth full of abuse.

The question is not "Will japan be a major military power?" It is "Could japan be a major military power?" and the answer is yes. India was just a GDP example and I said hold a candle to, not compete with the US.

What does your friends train ride have to do with the price of tea in China?

 

[KAPITAIN]

what does my mates train ride have to do with tea in china, well all i know is he spends $3 for a cup in hong kong when he is there, however the train ride would show the japanese is more dedicate to its own people than it is to a war.

Yes we have all seen the figures and what not that japan could become the next super power we have majoritly agreed that it has the money but theres also the other side what japan thinks but yes the question has the answer yes to it.

 

[Big-E]

I'm glad we finally agree on something.

 

[HK_Thoughtful]

From what I have seen and heard so far, it is my opinion that Japan can be a major world power (military power). Currently Japan's military is prolly considered to be ranked 2nd in terms of warfighting capability, only behind the U.S., in the Pacific Region. However, the only thing holding Japan's military back is their consitution that places restrictions on Japan's military ablitity. EX: Kongo Class Aegis Destroyers and highly developed tech industry

In response to the EU/USA topic I don't think that is relevant to this trend. However, it must be said that the EU still a developing political, economy, and military institution (for lack of a better word). While I do not doubt the EU's capability in terms of military equipment, tactics, training,etc., the EU must improve upon their logistics. I.E. A variety of excellent but not compatiable equipment and doctrine. Sry bit off topic...

 

[Big-E]

In response to the EU/USA topic I don't think that is relevant to this trend. However, it must be said that the EU still a developing political, economy, and military institution (for lack of a better word). While I do not doubt the EU's capability in terms of military equipment, tactics, training,etc., the EU must improve upon their logistics. I.E. A variety of excellent but not compatiable equipment and doctrine. Sry bit off topic...

Until EU becomes a single political entity it won't happen.

 

[Snayke]

The EU is not a unified military organisation. They are a trading bloc, just like ASEAN.

 

[Waylander]

That's not entirely right. We are trying to form EU-Battlegroups for fast reaction deployments and there are some other defence agreements as well. Nevertheless the effectiveness of these agreements, battlegroups, etc. is lousy.

 

[Grand Danois]

That's not entirely right. We are trying to form EU-Battlegroups for fast reaction deployments and there are some other defence agreements as well. Nevertheless the effectiveness of these agreements, battlegroups, etc. is lousy.

This is what the CIA Factbook has to say on the European Union.

In November 2004, the European Union heads of government signed a "Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe" that offers possibilities - with some limits - for increased defense and security cooperation. If ratified, in a process that may take some two years, this treaty will in effect make operational the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) approved in the 2000 Nice Treaty. Despite limits of cooperation for some EU members, development of a European military planning unit is likely to continue. So is creation of a rapid-reaction military force and a humanitarian aid system, which the planning unit will support. France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Italy continue to press for wider coordination. The five-nation Eurocorps - created in 1992 by France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, and Luxembourg - has already deployed troops and police on peacekeeping missions to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo and assumed command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan in August 2004. Eurocorps directly commands the 5,000-man Franco-German Brigade, the Multinational Command Support Brigade, and EUFOR, which took over from SFOR in Bosnia in December 2004. Other troop contributions are under national command - commitments to provide 67,100 troops were made at the Helsinki EU session in 2000. Some 56,000 EU troops were actually deployed in 2003. In August 2004, the new European Defense Agency, tasked with promoting cooperative European defense capabilities, began operations. In November 2004, the EU Council of Ministers formally committed to creating thirteen 1,500-man "battle groups" by the end of 2007, to respond to international crises on a rotating basis. Twenty-two of the EU's 25 nations have agreed to supply troops. France, Italy, and the UK are to form the first three battle groups in 2005, with Spain to follow. In May 2005, Norway, Sweden, and Finland agreed to establish one of the battle groups, possibly to include Estonian forces. The remaining groups are to be formed by 2007. (2005)

Wonder how much influence the French and Dutch nay to the "Constitution" will have?

There are EU battlegroups, the EuroCorps and European NRF (NATO)battlegroups. The latter being fully certified this year. But other than that I'm reasonably confused on what exactly we get for the 185 billion € spent on defense!

Some specialisation and the elimination of duplication of effort is going pretty well, but getting R&D and procurement organised is a nightmare and it won't get any better.

As Big-E said, as long as there is no single political entity, it will have a hard time to manifest.

 

[Big-E]

That's not entirely right. We are trying to form EU-Battlegroups for fast reaction deployments and there are some other defence agreements as well. Nevertheless the effectiveness of these agreements, battlegroups, etc. is lousy.

They have been working on these for years and have yet to come up with a force structure for something as small as a reactionary force. As long as EU members have seperate militaries they will not have unified command and control, too many fighting for position.

 

[Waylander]

I know.
It's definitely not working like it should and by knowing how my and the other governments in Europe behave I really doubt it is going to work in the future.

 

[Snayke]

Yup. Way too hard to organise a single military structre with many governments wanting them to do this and that. Too much bureaucracy for one single military to handle. And when I meant a single unified military, I meant ALL EU nations had integrated their militaries with the other members and created one structure. Not just a small taskforce. That doesn't make the EU nations a unified military.