Poland Buys South Korean FA-50

[Shinpachi]

Can you please provide a citation that Japan is actually paying $8B per year to the US for military? I might believe Trump said lots of things, but I've looked and I really think you're just wrong about the amount actually spent. I've already twice given you citations that the actual number is $8.6B per five years.

To be clear, many many reputable sources on the internet say is $8.6B per five years, and that's what I'm going to believe unless you can offer a reputable source that says otherwise.

I really think you should look it up yourself. I think your memory is wrong.

-Peace

One of the citations for the $8B.

２０年度　米軍経費　７９７６億円/日本の高額負担常態化/半分は支払う義務なし

The $8.6B is equivalent to the green line of my last graph.

【独自】「思いやり予算」５年で１兆円超、日米が大筋合意…「２プラス２」来月７日開催で調整

【読売新聞】　２０２２～２６年度の在日米軍駐留経費の日本側負担（思いやり予算）を巡り、日米両政府が５年間の総額を１兆円超とすることで大筋合意したことがわかった。１６～２０年度に実際に支出した額と比較すると、全体で５００億円弱の増額と

www.yomiuri.co.jp

 

[Shinpachi]

Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?

Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?

As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.

I will answer your question later.
Thanks.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?

Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?

As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.

Lets not forget though that having our troops overseas in places like Japan and Germany are more for our national interests rather than simply defending them.

 

[gumbyk]

Lets not forget though that having our troops overseas in places like Japan and Germany are more for our national interests rather than simply defending them.

I think it would be naive to think that the USA's presence in Japan is in any way altruistic.

This is getting dangerously close to political...

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Lets not forget though that having our troops overseas in places like Japan and Germany are more for our national interests rather than simply defending them.

It serves our national interest, no doubt. But it also serves the national interests of the host nations, and when told off (e.g. the Philippines or France) we quit our bases. My question was pointed at the implication that our bases are more expensive for the defense of the country in question compared to what they could put up themselves, and would they be willing to pay the price.

I think our national interest could be served equally-well with these forces being local ... if the political will and financial wherewithal is there.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It serves our national interest, no doubt. But it also serves the national interests of the host nations, and when told off (e.g. the Philippines or France) we quit our bases. My question was pointed at the implication that our bases are more expensive for the defense of the country in question compared to what they could put up themselves, and would they be willing to pay the price.

I think our national interest could be served equally-well with these forces being local ... if the political will and financial wherewithal is there.

Of course it serves the host nations interests as well. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. I'm not sure it would be possible to serve our interests equally by keeping our forces in CONUS for both political and financial/economic reasons.

 

[kitplane01]

One of the citations for the $8B.

２０年度　米軍経費　７９７６億円/日本の高額負担常態化/半分は支払う義務なし

The $8.6B is equivalent to the green line of my last graph.

【独自】「思いやり予算」５年で１兆円超、日米が大筋合意…「２プラス２」来月７日開催で調整

【読売新聞】　２０２２～２６年度の在日米軍駐留経費の日本側負担（思いやり予算）を巡り、日米両政府が５年間の総額を１兆円超とすることで大筋合意したことがわかった。１６～２０年度に実際に支出した額と比較すると、全体で５００億円弱の増額と

www.yomiuri.co.jp

Working with the google translate function ...

The first cite says "This paper calculated based on the Japanese Communist Party's .... " and that's where I stopped reading.

The second cite says "It was revealed that the Japanese and U.S. governments have agreed in principle to set the total cost of the U.S. military stationing in Japan from 2022 to 2026 at more than 1 trillion yen over the next five years.". That's just around $8B OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, which is just about what every other source says .. 8.6B over the next five years.

First you wrote "half the defense budget" which would be 25B per year. Then you wrote 8B per year. The correct answer is about 1.7B per year, as both your web sites and mine all agree.

I'm done. I wish you well.

 

[Shinpachi]

Could the Japanese staff, equip, and operate these bases cheaper than they are contracting the job out to Americans? How much would it cost Japan to provide that security compared to what they are paying the Americans to do that? Or would your country be more satisfied with lowering the defense posture all-around?

Remember too that implicit in those bases being American is that attacking them courts nuclear reprisal. Is that expense factored into your balancing here?

As an American taxpayer, I'd be happy if other countries picked up more their share of defense. That's not a critique of Japan, but my own personal preference for our guys to be stationed closer to home and held in higher readiness regarding training, equipment, and TDY. I do have a little isolationist streak, to be sure.

Please let me answer straightly as I am not so young as to hesitate to say something.

Before talking about Japan's future defense, it would be necessary to think back what happened in the history again.
In the first place, isn't this a major premise that Japanese original military power had been disbanded in 1945, not voluntarily, but by the US so that Japan had no choice but relied on the US military power in the Far East?

Traditional Japanese conservatives, mainly represented by LDP, have been wishing to have Japan's independent military power which is never controlled by foreign powers for the past 77 years. I think that this will be same for any countries because this is a matter of national pride but I do not necessarily think that this will mean immediate conflicts with neighboring countries when the war with them had ended in 1945. What the US currently says "common enemies" with Japan is basically the enemies for the US. Please do not forget that Japan is a member of Asia before a partner of the security treaty with the US.

Sadly, the presence of the US military power in the Far East has been posing the danger of military conflict between the US and Japanese neighboring countries, which was not necessarily a good policy for Japan's security and is completely counterproductive for Japan's economy too. If the US troops may withdraw from Japanese territory in the future, naturally, Japan will have no choice but to increase its defense budget to make up for the lack of defense capability but, remember, most of that budget can be used for the domestic industries and new employment more than ever, which is economically favorable certainly. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, for example, will not have to suffer from order shortage to the Ministry of Defense anymore as it has been on the edge of bankrupcy for many years.

Since Japan did not have chances enough to grow such a Military-Civilian Complex as other countries did, it will be hard for Japan to turn into an arms exporter so soon but, of course, Japan will be equipped with the nuclear weapons. This is absolutely necessary as a deterrent. However, ultimately, Japan will aim for a neutral position in the region based on its own historical experiences in my opinion.

 

[Shinpachi]

Working with the google translate function ...

The first cite says "This paper calculated based on the Japanese Communist Party's .... " and that's where I stopped reading.

The second cite says "It was revealed that the Japanese and U.S. governments have agreed in principle to set the total cost of the U.S. military stationing in Japan from 2022 to 2026 at more than 1 trillion yen over the next five years.". That's just around $8B OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, which is just about what every other source says .. 8.6B over the next five years.

First you wrote "half the defense budget" which would be 25B per year. Then you wrote 8B per year. The correct answer is about 1.7B per year, as both your web sites and mine all agree.

I'm done. I wish you well.

It will be easier for you to understand like this -

Total defense budge of Japan: $50 billion

Japan's total costs for the US: $15 billion
Details:
Base maintenance: $8 billion
Weapon: $5 billion
Salary/welfare: $2 billion

That is, the US cannot run its troops in Japan without Japanese budget.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Please let me answer straightly as I am not so young as to hesitate to say something.

Before talking about Japan's future defense, it would be necessary to think back what happened in the history again.
In the first place, isn't this a major premise that Japanese original military power had been disbanded in 1945, not voluntarily, but by the US so that Japan had no choice but relied on the US military power in the Far East?

Traditional Japanese conservatives, mainly represented by LDP, have been wishing to have Japan's independent military power which is never controlled by foreign powers for the past 77 years. I think that this will be same for any countries because this is a matter of national pride but I do not necessarily think that this will mean immediate conflicts with neighboring countries when the war with them had ended in 1945. What the US currently says "common enemies" with Japan is basically the enemies for the US. Please do not forget that Japan is a member of Asia before a partner of the security treaty with the US.

Sadly, the presence of the US military power in the Far East has been posing the danger of military conflict between the US and Japanese neighboring countries, which was not necessarily a good policy for Japan's security and is completely counterproductive for Japan's economy too. If the US troops may withdraw from Japanese territory in the future, naturally, Japan will have no choice but to increase its defense budget to make up for the lack of defense capability but, remember, most of that budget can be used for the domestic industries and new employment more than ever, which is economically favorable certainly. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, for example, will not have to suffer from order shortage to the Ministry of Defense anymore as it has been on the edge of bankrupcy for many years.

Since Japan did not have chances enough to grow such a Military-Civilian Complex as other countries did, it will be hard for Japan to turn into an arms exporter so soon but, of course, Japan will be equipped with the nuclear weapons. This is absolutely necessary as a deterrent. However, ultimately, Japan will aim for a neutral position in the region based on its own historical experiences in my opinion.

Right, there's a trade-off involved in the relationship. I was wondering about the specifics of it, and which expense model you would prefer. I'm aware of the reasons why the Americans initially took up the issue of defending Japan, given the constitution we dictated to y'all as well as our own geopolitical concerns. However, I don't think that the past should be carried forward immutably. I'd like to see change in this regard.

 

[Shinpachi]

The future will be decided by the future guys/gals.
Seems not my business at least but I only tell our history, tradition and pride.

 

[J_P_C]

According to "internet sources" Japan spends 1% of it's GNP on defense.

Japan’s Defense Budget: Double or Nothing?

The Kishida administration should maintain a calculated, long-term approach to increasing Japan’s defense budget.

thediplomat.com

according to historical sources it is hard limit imposed by Mc Arthur in Japan's constitution...

 

[Shinpachi]

The seventh in the world would be enough to support the US operation in Asia.

 

[Admiral Beez]

According to "internet sources" Japan spends 1% of it's GNP on defense.

Looks like it'll be double that by 2027. Another thank you to Putin and his global reawakening of Western defence spending.

Japan unveils record defence budget amid regional security fears

The cabinet's nod for a 20-percent rise in military spending is a deviation from pacifist post-WWII self-defence policy.

www.aljazeera.com

Now, if we can only get my country Canada to get in gear.

 

[Shinpachi]

Yes, it's Biden's victory and PM Kishida and his administration are on the edge now as he can't find fund for it except increasing tax.
May be the end of LDP if other parties may unite for the next general election.

 

[Shinpachi]

Kishida's reality is not so optimistic as Biden tells his media

Japan's focus on defense spending casts doubt on growth

Whether 1.5% growth will be realized depends on corporate wage hikes and the inflation situation.

www.japantimes.co.jp

 

[GreenKnight121]

according to historical sources it is hard limit imposed by Mc Arthur in Japan's constitution...

Could you cite those sources? Because that is another fictional "In the Japanese Constitution" myth.

Here is a link to the entire Japanese constitution (which came into effect in May 1947, and has never been amended)- please cite where that limit is found:

THE CONSTITUTION OF JAPAN

In light of Article 9, this excerpt from the book
The Japan Self-Defense Forces Law: Translation, History, and Analysis Edited by Robert D. Eldridge and Musashi Katsuhiro
is appropriate to explain why the JSDF is so-named, and how it exists at all:
https://www.cambridgescholars.com/resources/pdfs/978-1-5275-3351-6-sample.pdf

Here is the opening page (my bolding):

INTRODUCTION
ROBERT D. ELDRIDGE
In recent months, as well as irregularly over the past half-century, there have been numerous discussions within Japan regarding the revision of Article 9, the so-called "peace clause," among other aspects of the
Japanese Constitution. The postwar Constitution came into effect seventy years ago in May 1947 but has yet to be amended even once.

The initial debate on Article 9, originally drafted in February 1946 by the staff of General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers (SCAP) during the Occupation of Japan (1945-1952),
began during deliberations in the Diet, Japan's parliament. The final form of Article 9 reads: "(1) Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as
a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential,
will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized."1

There is much academic and political debate about the original intent of Article 9, with Colonel Charles A. Kades, a lawyer serving as the deputy chief of the Government Section at General Headquarters, SCAP,
explaining to interviewers later how he struck out the more extreme clause in the original version which included at the end of what became the first paragraph following "international disputes" the phrase, "even for preserving its own security" in order to allow Japan to be able to participate in collective self-defense as part of the United Nations (Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which went into effect in October
19452)

On the surface, based on the wording of Paragraph 2 of Article 9, the very existence of the SDF is unconstitutional, and thus much legal and political maneuvering in the early years focused on this question.
Instead of amending Article 9, which would have invited domestic criticism and pressure from political parties in favor of "protecting the constitution (goken)," the Japanese government over the years has as necessary
expanded its interpretation of the provisions of Article 9. For example, it has stated that "war potential" means the ability to wage an aggressive war, and because the SDF is for Japan's own self-defense it is thus constitutional.

Eventually, the courts endorsed this view but politically in Japan, there is an uneasy status—the SDF is seen as legal, because its existence is enshrined in laws and bound by them, while being
technically unconstitutional.

While the Japanese Constitution has been hotly—and inconclusively —debated over the years, the law concerning the Self-Defense Forces has received little attention.
This book is the first full translation of the SDF Law, and actually the first book in any language that looks at the law in any detail.

Note that the full book includes a complete English translation of the 2019 version of the law authorizing the Self-Defense Forces.

Here is another site that discusses the SDF law: Japan's Evolving Position on the Use of Force in Collective Self-Defense

 

[Shinpachi]

Although the bilateral relationships between two countries are not so much changed even today, the Occupied Japan could not decide anything without GHQ's order, instruction, intention and confirmation.

Three basic points stated by Supreme Commander to be "musts" in constitutional revision shown during 3-4 Feb. 1946.

Source(English ver.): MacArthur Notes (MacArthur's Three Basic Points), February 3, 1946 | Birth of the Constitution of Japan

 

[GreenKnight121]

Sigh... and you still posted that AFTER I had posted the book excerpt where Colonel Charles A. Kades, a lawyer serving as the deputy chief of the Government Section at General Headquarters, SCAP, explained to interviewers later how he struck out the more extreme clause in the original version which included at the end of what became the first paragraph following "international disputes" the phrase, "even for preserving its own security" in order to allow Japan to be able to participate in collective self-defense as part of the United Nations (Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which went into effect in October 1945)!

Yes, you posted the original version BEFORE the editing which then ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED Japan to provide for self-defense!

Note that your notes are dated 1 year 3 months BEFORE the actual signing of the Japanese Constitution... which does not, and never did, contain most of section II of your document.

Nice going.


One of the Internationally-recognized properties of nationhood is the right of the nation to defend itself from attack - without that it is not a nation.

That is why the "even for preserving its own security" clause was removed by the US from the draft of the Japanese Constitution before its adoption - if that was there, Japan would not be a nation, but a US administered mandate in perpetuity.

And yes, MacArthur approved the revision - otherwise the Japanese Constitution would not have been as it is now.

 

[Shinpachi]

Sigh... and you still posted that AFTER I had posted the book excerpt where Colonel Charles A. Kades, a lawyer serving as the deputy chief of the Government Section at General Headquarters, SCAP, explained to interviewers later how he struck out the more extreme clause in the original version which included at the end of what became the first paragraph following "international disputes" the phrase, "even for preserving its own security" in order to allow Japan to be able to participate in collective self-defense as part of the United Nations (Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which went into effect in October 1945)!

Yes, you posted the original version BEFORE the editing which then ABSOLUTELY ALLOWED Japan to provide for self-defense!

Note that your notes are dated 1 year 3 months BEFORE the actual signing of the Japanese Constitution... which does not, and never did, contain most of section II of your document.

Nice going.


One of the Internationally-recognized properties of nationhood is the right of the nation to defend itself from attack - without that it is not a nation.

That is why the "even for preserving its own security" clause was removed by the US from the draft of the Japanese Constitution before its adoption - if that was there, Japan would not be a nation, but a US administered mandate in perpetuity.

And yes, MacArthur approved the revision - otherwise the Japanese Constitution would not have been as it is now.

Thanks for your kind explanation, GreenKnight121.
What experts understand for themselves are not necessarily same as the people do.
I understand that those discussions leading up to the official proclamation of the new constitution to the Japanese people on November 3, 1946 were, after all, about technical terms of expression when the three basic points by MacArthur were firmly held. About whether JSDF is constitutional or not, even the Japanese Supreme Court is obliged to suspend its judgment as too political.