Japan, U.S. to discuss revising defense guidelines

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 3

    Cortes Elijah

    As much as I oppose the U.S being here, I am also for it.

    It is better than nothing to have them here...I think having them here is a symbol to China to stay on their side of the fence. As for the osprey issue, I don't agree with the Japanese complaint about it being unsafe... every aircraft has the chance of crashing into your house...the osprey is no different and is now fixed of testing errors. The one thing is the noise...they are going to be deployed near my home soon in Kanagawa... I guess I won't be complaining tho if there is a war and those osprey deliver troops into hard to get locations to control important points.....

    I think it is good that they deepened the "Defense" treaty.

  • -5

    BertieWooster

    Cortes Elijah-san,

    There is much to the Osprey problem, it is not simple.

    To begin with, imagine a runway right in the middle of Yokohama, a few kilometers from the sea, surrounded by houses, shopping centers, schools and so on. Ospreys take off and land over a very crowded city.

    "Deepening the relationship" means expanding US military bases in Okinawa, that means taking EVEN MORE space. Henoko, for example, which was PRed as a "heliport," is planned to be a huge multi service complex. To build this, they plan to rip up much of the UN protected forest in the North and construct two 1,800 meter long runways in the ocean.

    This is why Okinawans have been protesting so hard and for so long.

    There doesn't have to be a problem with China. I get the feeling that some are trying to manufacture a problem where none exists. Again there is so much to say about this. Read on:

    http://www.japanfocus.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3418

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    There doesn't have to be a problem with China. I get the feeling that some are trying to manufacture a problem >where none exists. Again there is so much to say about this. Read on:

    http://thediplomat.com/asean-beat/2011/05/20/aseans-china-challenge/

  • 0

    JTDanMan

    Somewhere between the week-kneed alamism of the Ossan's of the this world and the glib head-in-the-sandsim of Bertie Woosters of this world lies the truth about China rising, and what challenges that poses to Japan and the rest of our allies in the region.

  • -3

    warispeace

    After Japan's imperialistic push ended with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan hid in America's shadow as both countries went about raping the world's resources and leaving others impoverished. Fukushima is another warning that this country does not wear the robes of dominator well. Japan should look to its agrarian roots and find a new and softer path, suited for a small island country at the edge of the Pacific.

  • 0

    CoreyL

    If China was smart, it wouldn't use force, it would use economics. Take out the enemy from the inside out...

  • 1

    Yubaru

    Discussing the issue is one thing, coming up with concrete plans for the future of the alliance is another thing. THe easiest way to fix the Osprey problem would be for the Japan Air Self Defense forces and Ground Forces to purchase it for their own use. Easiest way to calm things down.

    Henoko is NOT PLANNED to be anything other than a heliport for the Ospreys and it would have been built by now if the Government had had some backbone instead of being constantly wishy-washy, but then this IS Japanese politics.

    Futenma needs to be moved, either Henoko $$$$$$ or KAB not so $$$$$ would be perfect.

    This is why some Okinawans have been protesting so hard and for so long.

    People should ignore Berties post, it's pure fear mongering based upon ignorance of the issues. No they are protesting because they want to save the dugong.

  • 1

    Sylvester Haynes

    well, it seems that the USA, needs to still baby sit the Japanese government and her people.

  • 0

    kiyoshiMukai

    Its great to have the US around. That way Japan doesnt have to spend billions on carriers and at the same time put china with tail between legs.

  • -2

    Ch1n4Sailor

    But don't worry YO... This Dialog won't have anything to do with SOFA, the only thing on the table will be strategic policies and guidelines... There's nothing about changing the SOFA to fit Okinawa's or the Far Right's agenda, so don't get too excited, I'm sure it's nothing you care, after all, you don't need the U.S. Military...LOL...

  • -2

    cramp

    well, you can't have it both ways...you want the US outta okinawa but now you also want more presence?

    gotta pad that wallet and give up more land for that...

  • 1

    USNinJapan2

    BertieWooster

    To build this, they plan to rip up much of the UN protected forest in the North and construct two 1,800 meter long runways in the ocean.

    There are UN protected natural sanctuaries on Okinawa? The United Nations? That's a new one. Of course this is just another example of the hot air you spew to vilify the US military on Okinawa but I'm sure you can show us exactly which areas are protected by the UN as nature reserves. Now of course your beloved MCAS Futenma on the other hand is a strategic UN base. Oh the irony...

  • -1

    unequivocallyobservingjapan

    Time for japan to defend itself and truly act like a first rate country that it so desperately in vain tries to be.

  • 2

    Yubaru

    There are UN protected natural sanctuaries on Okinawa?

    There are NO UN protected forests on the mainland of Okinawa. The waters around the entire island are considered a quasi-national park.

  • -1

    flipper2

    The North Korea excuse again, North Korea this, North Korea that, I can't see any problems from North Korea except when Japan supports sanctions dictated by the US. Now it's also China this China that. Japan only seems to have enemies, is that a message?? Is Asia starting to become a new Middle East? Why provoke again with a build up of armaments? If North Korea is such a threat to Peace in Asia, shouldn't Japan look to China for support? Anyway a War in Asia will absolutely destroy much of it, my guess is Japan will be hardest hit.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    flipper2Nov. 12, 2012 - 01:03AM JST Japan only seems to have enemies, is that a message??

    No it's erroneous. Apart from China and North Korea, no other countries trat Japan as if it were an enemy. China on the other hand is considered the biggest threat to peace in the region by the U.S. Australian Sinfapre, Vietnam., Philli[pines, Malaysia, Taiwan, India....we coyuld keep going all day.

  • 0

    OssanAmerica

    JTDanManNov. 11, 2012 - 09:08AM JST Somewhere between the week-kneed alamism of the Ossan's of the this world

    The United States is hardly weak kneed, as every America hater will attest.

  • 0

    kiyoshiMukai

    In the japan history. Japan has never been friends with China. They shouldnt now. Again. We dont like each other. Its genetics.

  • -2

    BertieWooster

    kiyoshiMukai,

    Okinawa had an excellent relationship with China for hundreds of years.

    But then, Okinawa is not Japan.

    Right?

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    Yubaru,

    Henoko is NOT PLANNED to be anything other than a heliport for the Ospreys

    Not so.

    Under the "United States Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation" agreement of 2006, Henoko will have dual V-shaped 1,800 meter runways stretching from the existing Camp Schwab Base into Oura Bay. Henoko is planned to be "a comprehensive high-tech air, land and sea base - far larger and more multifunctional than the obsolescent, inconvenient and dangerous Futenma.

    "Deepening the alliance," means also that Japan foots the bill.

    Five billion dollars to construct the Henoko base (5 billion Dollars was the figure in 2005, it's bound to be much more now.)

    6.09 billion dollars to construct further US Marine Corps facilities in Guam.

  • 1

    Yubaru

    Under the "United States Japan Roadmap for Realignment Implementation" agreement of 2006, Henoko will have dual V-shaped 1,800 meter runways stretching from the existing Camp Schwab Base into Oura Bay. Henoko is planned to be "a comprehensive high-tech air, land and sea base - far larger and more multifunctional than the obsolescent, inconvenient and dangerous Futenma.

    Bertie google skills not withstanding, You'll have to understand the mission of the MC to understand that the sea base part is nothing more than a landing and departure site, and the land base already exists at Schwab, the rest is the heliport.

    Japan will foot part of the bill yes.

  • -5

    BertieWooster

    Yubaru-san,

    Looks like Japan is going to have to foot much more of the bill than maybe you realise:

    http://news.yahoo.com/u-says-t-repay-japan.html

    Japan simply cannot afford this, especially when you add in the massive subsidies we are already paying for the dubious honour of hosting the US military.

    Government of Japan Subsidies for US Japan-Based Forces (2011): 691.1 billion yen (approximately 8.6 billion dollars)

    (Page 194, Resistant Islands, , Gavan McCormack and Satoko Oka Norimatsu)

    Is this what "deepening the relationship" means?

  • 0

    basroil

    BertieWoosterNov. 12, 2012 - 12:20PM JST

    Looks like Japan is going to have to foot much more of the bill than maybe you realise:

    Think of it this way, 50000 battle ready men would cost Japan no less than $2 billion a year in salaries alone (3 million yen a head). Fuel for 6 large ships alone would be about $4 billion a year on average (or more). Maintenance on ships (just those six) and planes (lets say 20 fixed wing and 40 rotorcraft) along with training ammunition and ammunition maintenance will run you north of $4 billion a year. We're already past $10 billion a year in services and we haven't even gotten around to ship purchases ($2 billion for destroyers, up to $10 billion for new aircraft carriers, say 5+1 in that six ship pool and you have 20 billion DOLLARS, so lets say $1 billion a year), aircraft purchases, and the removal of contract rate reductions the US gives Japan.

    Looks like Japan's saving a lot more money "renting" the US armed forces than you realize.

  • 1

    smithinjapan

    Only a few of the usual Okinawan whiners present, I see. Guess they know that despite constantly being upset for the sake of being upset is a little less important than actually having defense against a real threat.

  • -4

    BertieWooster

    basroil-san,

    Would Japan need 50,000 battle ready men?

    In addition to the 239,430 they already have? (147,737 in the Ground Self-Defense Force, 44,327 in the Maritime Self-Defense Force, 45,517 in the Air Self-Defense Force, and 1,849 in the Joint Staff Office. Reserves numbering 57,899)

    Does Japan have to purchase destroyers, new aircraft carriers, aircraft ANNUALLY?

    In addition to the armament it already has?

    In any case, the US military is not here to defend Japan.

    So I don't see the reason to pay 8.6 billion dollars PER ANNUM.

    So, wouldn't "deepening the alliance" mean understanding and respect from the U.S.A. in allowing Japan the right to defend itself?

  • -3

    BertieWooster

    The Japanese contribution to the US military is more than 60 percent of the total amount of subsidies received from all countries around the world altogether.

    http://www.alter-magazine.jp/backno/backno_72.html

    Shouldn't "deepening the alliance" mean reducing or eliminating altogether this totally one-sided agreement?

  • -1

    basroil

    BertieWoosterNov. 12, 2012 - 02:47PM JST

    basroil-san,

    Would Japan need 50,000 battle ready men?

    In addition to the 239,430 they already have? (147,737 in the Ground Self-Defense Force, 44,327 in the Maritime Self-Defense Force, 45,517 in the Air Self-Defense Force, and 1,849 in the Joint Staff Office. Reserves numbering 57,899)

    They have 240000 men, not battle ready. It took them 3-4 days to mobilize just half of them for the biggest sudden need they've had (3/11). And the bases were fully intact (wouldn't be so in a war). Assuming they somehow get half their men operational in a day, that's still a 50% improvement in manpower alone.

    Does Japan have to purchase destroyers, new aircraft carriers, aircraft ANNUALLY?

    Unless you're crazy, nobody ever said that. I specifically said 6 large ships worth total, amortized over 20 years at just $1 billion a year. Almost all the cost is in annual costs anyway, like fuel, repairs, harbor/base maintenance (which is what most of the funds from Japan go into), salaries, etc.

    In addition to the armament it already has?

    What, the Hyuga and Ise? They haven't even laid down plans to add aircraft to them, and they can only fit 11 heli's on-board, while a single Wasp class ship can carry twice as many as both combined (LHD-6 is currently in Sasebo).

    The Japanese navy is almost exclusively anti-sub, and china has subs, sure, but the main issue is the aircraft and landing craft.

    The Japanese navy as it is today is completely incapable of stopping a landing force, since it was designed to play the cold war game of submarines vs anti-submarines.

  • -2

    Yubaru

    Japan simply cannot afford this, especially when you add in the massive subsidies we are already paying for the dubious honour of hosting the US military.

    "We"? Did you suddenly become Japanese? Look I've been paying taxes here longer than you've been alive, and I think it's a great deal. "We" get the protection that has allowed Japan to grow into the country it is today without the need to build up it's military. AND we have the wonderful folks in the military here to keep us company too. (With the exceptions of a few sad incidents.)

    Japan is getting a deal.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    Basroil,

    Getting the 239,400, or, if you prefer, 240,000 JSDF personnel battle ready should not incur much more expense than there is already.

    I would think that this would be an excellent reason for the U.S.A. to depart. If the JDSF realised that they had to defend themselves, they might brighten up a little and make a bit more of an effort.

    To support US bases in Japan, since the launch of the "Cost Sharing for the Stationing of US Forces in Japan" (Omoiyari) in 1978, Japan has paid 75 Billion Dollars and an extra 22 Billion Dollars for construction provided under the "Japanese Facilities Improvement Program," carried out between 1978 and 2010 (see "US Wants Additional Sympathy Budget," Japan Press Weekly, July 28-August 3, 2010.)

    Making Japan self supporting on defence wouldn't cost ANYTHING LIKE the amount that is being paid out to the US military.

    And EVEN IF it were, the money would not be a gift to a foreign power, it would be used by Japan for Japan's defence, a kind of investment.

    Deepening the alliance means, as far I am concerned, the U.S.A. moving to an advisory role for the time being until a time comes when even this is unnecessary.

  • 0

    Yubaru

    They have 240000 men, not battle ready. It took them 3-4 days to mobilize just half of them for the biggest sudden need they've had (3/11). And the bases were fully intact (wouldn't be so in a war). Assuming they somehow get half their men operational in a day, that's still a 50% improvement in manpower alone.

    You're not military, never have been and don't understand the logistics needed to "mobilize" an Army for war. It AINT that simple. These folks are JIETAI and their 9 to 5 job for the most part puts them in a state to help with domestic issues quickly.

    War? That's a totally different story.

  • 1

    Yubaru

    Making Japan self supporting on defence wouldn't cost ANYTHING LIKE the amount that is being paid out to the US military.

    And EVEN IF it were, the money would not be a gift to a foreign power, it would be used by Japan for Japan's defence, a kind of investment.

    You do not want to even consider a rearmed Japan and the consequences it would face with it's neighbors.

    You misunderstand the attitude of Japanese people, no one wants to see a nationalistic Japan on it's own. No one. Not even Ishihara Shintaro sees Japan without an alliance with the US. It would be suicide.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    Yubaru-san,

    You are quite right in that I'm not military and in that I don't completely understand the logistics needed to mobilise an army for war.

    My first question is, "What war?"

    The U.S.A. seems to be involved in wars all over the place. But unless there is one I don't know about, Japan is not.

    Does "deepening the alliance" mean that the U.S.A. would like Japanese SDF personnel to join it in its various battles? Kind of like Bush pushed Japan to do in the Iraq "war"?

    The next point I'd like to raise is that getting the Jieitai (yes, I do know what it means, thank you) combat ready should not have to take 10, 20 years.

    For your information, the number of people wanting US bases out of Japan altogether is rising. The demonstrations are spreading to Honshu. This is regardless of what nutcases like Ishihara think.

    The "protection money" to the U.S.A. is just too expensive for one thing.

    And finally, Yubaru-san, I wonder how old you think I am?

    That you have been paying taxes in Japan longer than I have been alive would surprise me.

  • -1

    basroil

    BertieWoosterNov. 12, 2012 - 05:27PM JST

    Getting the 239,400, or, if you prefer, 240,000 JSDF personnel battle ready should not incur much more expense than there is already.

    It would cost no less than 700 billion yen. You simply CANNOT expect more than half your army to be ready at any one time, so to get all 240000 you need 480000. If you would like to debate the numbers, go ahead and try, but you'll end up seeing that even 50% readiness is a bit of a stretch.

    Making Japan self supporting on defence wouldn't cost ANYTHING LIKE the amount that is being paid out to the US military.

    SDF is currently financed at $47 billion a year, roughly half on salaries and personnel costs. Simply put, each extra person is $100k. For 50000, that's a whole 5 billion in personnel costs alone. Add just the Bonhomme Richard with full assortment of aircraft and weapons (over 20 years) and you have your 9 billion dollar figure right there. Clearly you are talking without actually even bothering to see if your numbers add up.

    And EVEN IF it were, the money would not be a gift to a foreign power, it would be used by Japan for Japan's defence, a kind of investment.

    Why spend a lot of money doing something poorly if you can outsource it for less? And almost all that money goes straight back to the country anyway, both in short term employment and long term addition of bases they would need anyway. It's not like the US is actually taking any of that back home, they are using it and billions from their own pockets in Japan.

  • 0

    Nathaw

    Yubaru San

    Japan has been shrinking economically since 1991. Gross sovereign debt is 200 percent of GDP. More likely Japan will become another Greece for begging bail out before waging war with any nation. Imaginary enemy will cost fortune and countless lives according the WMD experience of Irag. Difference between Greece and Japan is external debt and internal debt. Defaulting own citizens debt will push to centurions of Okinawa to beg on the road.

    No nation has sustained the unlimited budget for defense. Japan was too broke for pursuing any military adventures like Irag which had a slogan as "mission accomplished. No more WMD mission pls!

  • -1

    BertieWooster

    basroil,

    Why spend a lot of money doing something poorly if you can outsource it for less?

    Because it's not outsourcing, is it?

    As has been pointed out to me many times, the US military is not obliged to defend Japan. It is not here to defend Japan, it is here to protect its own interests.

    And when US "advisors" exercise as much control over Japanese politics as they have over the past 60+ years, Japan is no longer an entrepreneur who outsources jobs that he doesn't want to do. He is a puppy dog, sitting, begging and rolling over at America's bidding.

    And also, as I said in my previous post, if Japan were spending its own money on its own defence, the money would stay in-house. The job would naturally be cheaper and far more honest.

    Does "deepening the alliance" mean that Japan has to change Article 9 of its constitution so that it can fight alongside or instead of the U.S.A?

  • 0

    Yubaru

    My first question is, "What war?"

    The war that you are egging for by having the US pull out of Japan. That's what war.

  • -2

    BertieWooster

    Dear, dear, poor Yubaru-san.

    There is no war.

  • -4

    basroil

    BertieWoosterNov. 12, 2012 - 10:03PM JST

    As has been pointed out to me many times, the US military is not obliged to defend Japan. It is not here to defend Japan, it is here to protect its own interests.

    And as has been pointed out, Japan's overall wellbeing is in US's best interests. The US will not risk war to protect some uninhabited islands, but if any populated area were to be assaulted, you can rest assured that the US will make sure whatever army made the attack doesn't even float long enough to to report back.

    And also, as I said in my previous post, if Japan were spending its own money on its own defence, the money would stay in-house.

    Since when has Japan designed a single aircraft that was viable? The Mitsubishi ATD-X that won't be flying until 2015+? The F-16 copy (licensed, but still a copy) F-2? What about ships like the outdated Hyuga, or even the 22DDH class that only somewhat catches up to the Wasp class currently in use by navy/marines?

    The job would naturally be cheaper and far more honest.

    Lets see, the Mitsubishi F-2 costs about 127 million dollars a plane, the F16 Block 40 that it's derived from costs at most 20 million dollars. The F/A 18E/F that it was chosen over costs just 67 million dollars a plane. In the Wasp class vs 22DDH class area, we have the same thing, the Wasp class is about 750 million dollars, while the 22DDH is 1500 million dollars.

    Japanese companies simply don't have the economics of scale to produce cheap war equipment, IT WILL ALWAYS COST MORE TO USE JAPANESE COMPANIES.

    Please stick to policy and don't try to debate economics, the numbers work out against Japan having their own defense force every single time.

  • 0

    Star-viking

    BertieWoosterNov. 12, 2012 - 05:27PM JST

    Getting the 239,400, or, if you prefer, 240,000 JSDF personnel battle ready should not incur much more expense than there is already.

    There's equipment costs, the costs of the facilities for the extra personnel, and the diplomatic costs of Japan being see to re-arm. The other issue is training, which means acquiring skills that are useful in real combat. This means both preparation for, and experience of war. I don't think Japan is ready for either.

  • 0

    Star-viking

    basroilNov. 13, 2012 - 03:51PM JST

    Lets see, the Mitsubishi F-2 costs about 127 million dollars a plane, the F16 Block 40 that it's derived from costs at most 20 million dollars. The F/A 18E/F that it was chosen over costs just 67 million dollars a plane. In the Wasp class vs 22DDH class area, we have the same thing, the Wasp class is about 750 million dollars, while the 22DDH is 1500 million dollars.

    Good points, though I must point out that the F/A 18 E/F is an early 90s design, the FS-X that gave us the Mitsubishi F-2 was a late 80s programme. That said, a Japanese F-18 FS-X would probably have had lots of bells-and-whistles added so the programme would probably have been as expensive as the F-2, especially when you consider how the Japanese low production numbers always ramp up costs - R&D gets spread over the lower number of airframes produced - something seen in the B-2 and F-22 programmes too.

    I'm not sure how illustrative the Wasp vs. 22DDH is - they are of different generations and roles, 1980s vs. 2010s. The new America LHAs would be a better comparision for generation, but still not spot-on, as the Japanese DDHs are ASW Carriers with 3D Phased Array Radars and Bow Sonars.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    I wonder.

    With all these recent comments about readiness for war.

    Why shouldn't Japan be neutral, like Switzerland?

    Perhaps Japan doesn't need an armed force to defend itself with.

    After all, what would anyone get if they attacked Japan?

    Not exactly brimming over with natural resources, is it?

    Perhaps the biggest asset Japan has is its population who are so easy to sell to and who are so willing to buy.

    I'm getting rather fed up with the US paranoia, "The yellow peril is upon us! We're all going to be murdered in our beds! China wants to attack! North Korea is sending missiles (sic)!"

    For heaven's sakes, calm down and make friends, make alliances where more than one side win, make trade, promote peaceful exchanges.

    And bung pride and FUD out the window.

  • 1

    slumdog

    Why shouldn't Japan be neutral, like Switzerland?

    Japan should be whatever Japan wants to be.

    For heaven's sakes, calm down and make friends, make alliances where more than one side win, make trade, promote peaceful exchanges.

    Be nice if things started going in that direction all over the world.

  • -2

    basroil

    Star-vikingNov. 13, 2012 - 05:05PM JST

    must point out that the F/A 18 E/F is an early 90s design, the FS-X that gave us the Mitsubishi F-2 was a late 80s programme. That said, a Japanese F-18 FS-X would probably have had lots of bells-and-whistles added so the programme would probably have been as expensive as the F-2, especially when you consider how the Japanese low production numbers always ramp up costs - R&D gets spread over the lower number of airframes p

    Yup, my entire thing is about Japan simply not having economics of scale on their side. R&D

    I'm not sure how illustrative the Wasp vs. 22DDH is - they are of different generations and roles

    True on both counts, though the Japanese ones are much smaller than either ship, and the only reasonable equal displacement ones are much, much cheaper. Not to mention the difference in aircraft capabilities far exceed the cost difference.

  • 0

    BertieWooster

    slumdog-san,

    Japan should be whatever Japan wants to be.

    Should be, dear friend, but unfortunately "should be" and "is" are not the same.

    Japan is a satellite of the U.S.A., unable to make its own decisions.

  • -4

    basroil

    BertieWoosterNov. 14, 2012 - 08:53AM JST

    Japan is a satellite of the U.S.A., unable to make its own decisions.

    Just because England lost China doesn't mean you have to take it out on the US....

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in Politics

View all

View all