This might not seem that relevant to HN at first blush, but a war between the two would involve the US (by treaty), and result in an unprecedentedly severe disruption in technology supply chains (not to mention a complete upending of supply and demand if the conflict were to gain any sort of traction).
I don't see how anything but the most limited war there wouldn't turn into ww3. It may not go nuclear, but it would be a bigger deal than Vietnam, Korea, or anyof the Gulf/Oil wars.
Well yeah, that's why this saber-rattling is so worrying. It wouldn't be first war to start over such nominally small stakes. The mods have changed the title, but the point of posting it was to draw attention to the fact that the two countries are flying fighter jets past each other now, which is a worrying escalation in my view. Aerial brinksmanship can go wrong a lot faster than the naval kind.
I also think it will go hot a lot more likely than the US-USSR cold war due to culture.
The US and Russia didn't hate each other for anything but ideology. The last time we were actually fighting a war total, we were on the same side, killing Nazis together and saving the world.
Communism vs. Capitalism was certainly a huge difference, but it wasn't "your grandfather raped and killed my great-aunt and all of her village", and, by the time it was US vs. USSR, both countries were at least pretty stable domestically (China is still rapidly evolving).
While I agree that a major clash in the area probably would end up the biggest war since ww2, I really don't see it turning into ww3 unless Russia decides to ally with China and intentionally spread the conflict to NATO. US will be involved due to their defensive pacts and will have no choice to take a side[].
[] They have defensive pacts with both SK and Japan, and possibly some others. SK and Japan don't have pacts with each other though and could end up on different sides though.
Even if Russia stays out, this is probably going to take a couple years to start off, and by that time Africa and the Middle East will be essentially on the side of China for economic reasons. Even if you don't end up with a united Africa + Middle East going to war on the side of China with the US/Japan, you could easily end up with US/China/Japan weird semi-war (counterforce conventional strikes, sinking ships, hitting bases, etc.), and a bunch of proxy wars throughout Africa and the Middle East. Those proxy wars then are what bring Europe and Russia in, potentially.
And this is not nearly the only conflict in the area, though maybe the most historically loaded one. The US is also bound by treaty to defend Vietnam, on which the PRC has opened fire a few times already...
I must be missing something, I don't see how that Wikipedia article says the US is bound by treaty defend Vietnam's claims the islands in the same manner the US is bound to defend Japan. Can you clarify? Living in Vietnam, I'm very curious about the subject
Same as for the Taiwan treaty I guess, the US would be insane to help the re-elected KMT government. I take it back, it's only Japan that would drag the US in.
I think it's not fair that we crippled japan's military autonomy; I mean the military funding in the usa is why we are at the front of the computer revolution.
I think most Asian countries invaded and occupied by the Japanese Military would have to disagree with that. Probably none of us are old enough to recall what it was like during that time, but from historical research and documentaries of accounts of civilians at the time, there's many good reasons Japan's military was crippled severely, just as Germany's military was. Also, it was not like either were left defenseless. The United States was bound to defend Japan by treaty and West Germany became part of NATO.
Crippling their militaries, each country took to dominating economically instead and benefited the world much more than any of their previous military actions did.
Semi related, but anyone interested a good World War II series and has not seen it, I reccomend the BBC's World at War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War). Lots of first hand accounts and interviews of leaders and their staff at the time of WWII.
I'm certainly not defending their war atrocities by any means. I just think that our military spending is responsible for a majority of our technological improvements, and it's sad japan never had a say really after their crash.
True, I agree that many innovations come out of research done by (or for) the military (microwaves, jet engines, computers, etc). It would be interesting to see the outcome of lifting the restrictions sooner and Japan's Economy, but it would have probably stirred up much in the way of negativity and distrust from other countries as well. It could have easily hurt trade, foreign relations and backfired as well.
On the other hand, neither Germany or Japan in WWII had to suffer through the terms and conditions placed on Germany after The Great War (WWI). That was if anything, the worse possible way to help a country recover.
But it seems like a criminal waste of resources to build the developed stuff -- and train lots of people. This decision have no good reason (North Korea? Hardly), it is forced because China haven't democratized so it needs external enemies to generate jingoism and hinder criticism of the Party.
(But sure, maybe China's main motivation is to get natural resources in sea areas that have belonged to other countries for centuries. That is hardly better.)
Technological improvement that happens because of military spending could have happened anyway under civilian spending, although the side effects resulting from research may well be different.
Article 9, along with Japan's reduced military spending and lack of a local Military Industrial Complex, or one that was substantially reduced in scope after the Second World War with focus redirected to consumer goods, is a significant reason why Japan was able to recover quickly after the war and to develop into the modern nation it has become.
What's missing from that news article, is the announcement on Friday of the ten naval patrol boats Japan will supply or lend to the Philippines to help protect against Chinese naval and fishing fleet incursions in local waters.
I just wrote a fairly lengthy comment about the possible merits of an expanded Japanese military industrial complex (in helping Japan's languishing economy) given the industrial strengths of Japan that suit arms manufacturing well and potential interest in SE and South Asian nations of non-US non-Russian weaponry, but couldn't get myself to post the comment for fear that because my user ID clearly indicates that I am ethnically Japanese, I could be taken as an imperialist nationalist; a strange psychological phenomenon to say the least. I wonder if there is a name for such a double take?
>> I wonder if there is a name for such a double take?
"Funny"?
(Sorry for a non-serious answer to a serious comment, I'm making a point that you should relax. The lack of taking responsibility (school education etc) for what happened in the 2nd world war might make other countries nervous, but afaik only Germany ever took responsibility for large war atrocities. Not Turkey, Pakistan, the Chinese communist party, etc, etc. No one expects a return of the militaristic Japan.)
First comment from a nine minutes old account... Ask with your real account and I'll answer.
Edit: Oh, wtf... see the censoring of the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Also afaik, they don't teach in Pakistan about what happened in Bangladesh in the early 70s.
You bring a good point to the thread about sins of the father, although you might not have realised it.
The Armenian government claims that the Turkish government is responsible for the Armenian genocide, although the Turkish republic (and it's government) didn't exist at the time. This is a bit like blaming the US for atrocities committed by the republic of Texas in California.
The decision about censoring the Armenian genocide is purely political and saddens me, but it's more to do with geopolitics than history.
The Pakistani government couldn't argue that, but Japan and most every other country ("It was a previous government, doesn't reflect us as a country at all"). It isn't that simple, sadly.
Depends on what you mean by "taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the wrath of US military power and paid with enormous human and economic costs.
The revival of a militaristic Japan is actually more likely than you think, tho still very unlikely. The reason is simple, most of the conditions that led to WWII still exist today. Japan is still controlled by a largely hawkish right-wing elite aristocratic class. Japan still brainwashes its population by denying war crimes committed during WWII. Japan still has virtually no natural resources enough to sustain its large population. Japan is still the premier military power in East Asia. Japan still spends an enormous amount of money on its military, however "defensive" it may be (I honestly don't know how a military that has helicopter carriers is defensive in nature). The only difference is that Japan is now militarily aligned with the U.S. and that China is no longer a political, technological, economical and military weakling. The Chinese would like to believe that the only thing standing between a peaceful Japan and a militaristic Japan is the PLA.
>>"taking responsibility". Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan all have received the wrath of US military power and paid
With "take responsibility" in English afaik, it means that you take responsibility for the situation (often implied I believe -- that you caused). If something else is implied by the expression, please enlighten me.
I have a hard time believing that Japan would start doing military adventures. It is, more or less, a functioning democracy. See the democratic peace theory, not even USA makes wars against democracies...
(And about your examples... Syria could use some responsibility from the self proclaimed world cop. It is a horror story probably worse than ex Yugoslavia; a shame for Obama. It just doesn't fit his priorities.)
One would say that external constraints imposed upon a criminal, which often includes said criminal taking action to correct his mistake in whatever form the imposer deems appropriate, as the criminal "taking responsibility". Germany is in no way the only country which has taken responsibility for war atrocities, but it is AFAIK, the only country which repent voluntarily and willingly. You may want to keep this in mind next time you play with semantics.
Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. There is no such government in place in the world right now. The US, though it has not formally declared war against other "democracies", it has in many instances, conducted clandestine subversive activities that one nation may use as the casus belli. For example, in 2001, Haiti democratically reelected a Catholic priest as president for the third time. In 2004, with the backing of the CIA, the president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office in a coup for reasons many accused as Aristide simply not being obedient to Western powers.
The US has also openly supported many oppressive regimes in the past and present time. This is also one of the pretexts Al-Qaeda used as justifications of their attacks against the US.
While Japan may not return to its imperial and militaristic roots in the past, it is perfect as a proxy vanguard against China and Russia. The US is good at proxy wars. As long as Japan is catering to the US's demands, the US may just turn a blind eye and condone Japan's rise as yet another aggressive nation in North East Asia. It only took Germany a decade to become Nazi Germany after all.
I'll leave the semantic discussion aside, since English is neither of ours native language.
>>Only direct, total democracy leads to peace.
Huh? Check the democratic peace theory on wikipedia. It says that democracies don't make wars. This "direct" and "total" democracy sounds like a place I'd be careful moving to...
The problems with democracies is that foreigners can't vote, the behaviour outside can be as dirty as for a "traditional" country. But the home opinion cares more with more internationalisation, it has gotten much better over 50 years or so. (The Aristide example seems shocking, I thought such US behaviour ended with the cold war.)
You present conspiracy theories about the US -- afaik, it isn't US interests where the sea borders around China are. They are not the ones playing the jingoism card.
Well, maybe not Turkey as it hasn't been defeated in any wars nor committed large war atrocities, but the predecessor state the Ottoman Empire was effectively dismantled by the treaty of Sevres at the end of the first world war, and the only reason the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the German side was the minister of war going behind the prime minister's back and signing a secret defensive treaty with the Germans. The original plan was to remain neutral as the government of the time knew it couldn't fight a war against the British and French or the Germans without losing territory, and that by remaining neutral it would leave options open for alliances should Russia invade.
Because of this, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned and dismantled, leaving only Istanbul and a small surrounding strip of land. It was this that led to former military commanders fighting the independence war that led to the creation of the modern Turkish republic.
I wonder, whenever that subject comes up, there are comments denying/obfuscating any Turkish responsibility. But directly when a Wikipedia link is posted, you hear nothing more...
This is HN, I think this is last virgin land the political nut jobs haven't found yet. Why don't you post it first and we'll discuss it like reasonable people?
It's worth noting that this is a tiny, tiny amount of money by US standards. A couple billion USD is not a big deal (financially or militarily, other than as a signal).
Still, as a Japanese resident, I am happy with this use of my tax money. With the Cold War with China already well underway, I think Japan needs a much stronger military than at any time since losing WWII. Partly because of the economic ascendance of China (which a lot of people these days somehow forget is a brutal, repressive, totalitarian state, not an advanced democracy like Japan) and partly because of the decline of the USA as comptent and rational actor on the world stage. Treaty-bound or not, I don't have much faith that the USA would do much wrt Chinese aggression toward Japan, short of an actual invasion (which hopefully will remain very unlikely).
As a Chinese, do you remember the atrocities you did to the Chinese people? You might not remember, but my grandparents remember it vividly. Now the question is, what has Chinese people done to you so far to have you make such a statement?
"He" did not commit war crimes. His grandparents or grandparent's relatives might have. Please don't equate crimes committed in past generations to crimes committed by this generation.
Now, the recent problem has nothing to do with government structures. It's simply a case of geo-political conflict of interests. South Korea is a full-fledged democracy, if they were enough to avoid any conflicts, there wouldn't be sovereignty dispute on the Liancourt Rocks.
Japan and China are not in a Cold War. That simply wouldn't make sense since no one has threatened anyone with total annihilation under nuclear weapons yet. There's also a zero chance that China will invade the Japanese homeland, never happened, never will happen. It's more likely that they'll take Diaoyu/Senkaku by force if they have to. Diaoyu/Senkaku is virtually indefensible and uninhabitable pieces of rocks, so I highly doubt that the Chinese will do that unless they can control Taiwan and possibly Okinawa - impossible and unlikely task.
As a Chinese also, do you realize that the person you're talking to has done nothing to the Chinese people?
His ancestors (possibly, and possibly not), under a completely different regime that is wholly unlike that which governs Japan today, committed atrocities against your ancestors.
He does not remember, because he was not alive to witness or commit said atrocities, or indeed have the tiniest sliver of influence on the regime that did so. You are suggesting moral culpability where there cannot, in any reasonable mind, be any. He has done nothing. He is not his ancestors, and shares exactly zero moral responsibility for their actions when he wasn't even alive.
Other the other hand, I have met many fellow Chinese who have expressed, without a sliver of irony, that the blood spilled 7 decades ago needs to be repaid. Yes, I've had people suggest this to my face seriously. They suggest that committing the same atrocities back against the Japanese is somehow just.
There is plenty of hate to go around, from everyone. The Chinese people aren't saints, and to believe that only the Japanese are capable of such atrocities is the exact hubris needed to lead the world back down that dark path again.
This is a geopolitical conflict between two major powers. Nothing more, nothing less. Any nationalistic cheerleading is strictly playing to the interests of politicians, not any nobler concept like ethnicity, race, or nation.
That present-day China is a totalitarian state is just a statement of fact about its government, not an opinion or a judgement about the Chinese people. (And personally, I really wish them the best in changing that situation.)
But, the Chinese government being what it is, you have to consider it when deciding to live or do business here.
Japan was indeed once a dangerous and belligerent actor on the world stage (Nanjing massacre, sex slave camps, attempted genocide, and lots more evil stuff.) However, Japan's military was then thoroughly annihilated, its cities were nuked, its capital was burned to the ground, and most of its leaders were put to death. Throw in a new constitution protecting human rights and the creation of a functioning democratic government, and we end up with an extremely different Japan today, 67 years later.
And (in my opinion), today's Japan is a really great place to live and to do almost any kind of technology-related business.
So I'm not making any statement absolving Japan's historical atrocities (incidentally, I'm American, and both my grandfathers fought against Japan in WWII). But I also don't think they are all that relevant to the times we live in. The perpetrators are now all dead, and the empire they fought for was thoroughly dismantled before I was born.
On the other hand, I'm a lot more interested in what's happening right now. And as far as I can see, Japan doesn't threaten its neighbors or the stability of the region in any way. China, on the other hand, with with its recent threats of military action against Japan, almost daily maritime incursions into Japanese territory, support of North Korea, and so forth, seems extremely unhelpful. (Plus, that whole totalitarianism thing... historically, seems to usually end badly.)
So as a practical matter, I think that the interests of regional stability and peaceful business pursuits would probably be better served if Japan had a military more in line with its economic power, rather than relying on the protection of a country across the ocean, most of whose citizens couldn't find Japan on a map.
After seeing how Japanese government handled Fukushima accident, I as a Korean don't feel very safe with them wanting to play with a bigger gun. If Japanese government doesn't or can't take care of its own people, how do I believe it will care so much about world peace?
Technically, China has never issued any formal threats of using force against Japan(google that one), North Korea is as much as PITA for China as well as the rest of the world. The only reason DPRK is still here is because China doesn't want any massive influx of refugees (North Koreans can't cross into the South directly because of the landmines in the DMZ).
As much as I hate the current regime in China, I don't see them being a threat to world peace. The fear of totalitarian regimes is pretty much a BS notion manufactured by the American media. A totalitarian leader is only a threat to world peace under the following conditions: 1) He's extremely charismatic. 2) His country is running out of resources. 3) He believes he is under a great external threat.
China hasn't seen a charismatic leader since Mao, tho running out of resources, it is actively addressing it by developing renewable resources. There is also no country openly hostile to China, including Japan.
I don't have anything against Japan increasing meagerly its military budget, or even repeal Article 9. It's fully their right to do so as long as they are not hostile. But saying Japan is not potentially dangerous is not entirely correct. Japan is still mostly ruled by a right wing aristocracy that have extremely close relationship with the government officials during WWII. Economy has stagnated and arguable steadily declining since the 90s. It has almost no natural resources for an industrialized nation to speak of and it believes it is under constant thread from North Korea. All that it takes is a charismatic Japanese leader and a crappy Chinese defense to see Japan aggression rise up again.
What happened post WWI to the end of WWII by past Japanese that no longer run the country was an atrocity to say the least. As others mentioned, those people are no longer governing the country and their ideas are not carried by the majority.
However, what is somewhat alarming is how Japan went from being a civilized country that treated prisoners humanely[1] in WWI with Germans they captured to what happened following The War. Although humans can be brutal, it still shocks me whenever I see examples of how a population can do almost a 180 (regardless of country [not trying to pick on Japan, they were just the discussion topic]) in such a short time. Makes one pause to think how a cultured, intelligent population can go astray so quickly under the wrong leadership.
But I, as a Korean, (and I'm sure many other Asians too) can't help myself but to consider it as a big threat to the region's peace as I see tensions getting worse and worse between Japan and China/Korea especially on their maritime boundaries. Of course, you may have something on your own to say but still I don't think you can say Japan is making the right move every step of the way to the world peace.
After looking back to what happened from military expansion of Japanese imperialism back in WWII, I'm sure you understand why other Asian countries oppose to the idea and will stay that way.
I think Korea (I'm assuming RoK) has less to fear from Japan than from DPRK. The presence of US troops in both RoK and Japan pretty much prevents any kind of escalation of violence (if there is any to begin with). Besides, Japan's constitution explicitly forbids it from declaring war or maintaining a large offensive military[1].
After looking back to what happened from military expansion of Japanese imperialism back in WWII,
Except that Japan is now a democracy instead of a military-governed totalitarian state
It seems the new nationalist government of Japan wants to change the constitution:
Mr Abe has made no secret of his wish to revise three of the country’s basic modern charters: the American-imposed constitution of 1946, committing Japan to pacifism; the education law, which Mr Abe thinks undervalues patriotism; and the security treaty with the United States, under which Japan plays a junior role. To describe the new government as “conservative” hardly captures its true character. This is a cabinet of radical nationalists.
What you said is probably worrying think tanks but now it's totally different from back then: S Korea is no slouch and people are more aware. Not to mention that any rise of Japan will be checked by China. The last thing you want is a China that fears no one.
This could be a bit of a stretch, but if German government decides to increase military spending for economic recovery, wouldn't Poland and France be alerted and ask Germans to reconsider? Or it's totally different now from back then and let Germans to play with Leopards and U-boats again all they want?
UK* and France would not be happy. Poland especially, but they are between two historical enemies and can't really resist either of them militarily. But the Germans know their history, they lost twice and a third one might be fatal for "Germany".
Well, that's sort of my point. Some Japaneses don't seem to know or care about their history. We keep hearing how their government is systematically trying to avoid mentioning what really happened back then internally through their so-called 'history textbook reform' and externally by denying war crimes which even their past government had accepted as facts.
52 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 123 ms ] threadThe US and Russia didn't hate each other for anything but ideology. The last time we were actually fighting a war total, we were on the same side, killing Nazis together and saving the world.
Communism vs. Capitalism was certainly a huge difference, but it wasn't "your grandfather raped and killed my great-aunt and all of her village", and, by the time it was US vs. USSR, both countries were at least pretty stable domestically (China is still rapidly evolving).
[] They have defensive pacts with both SK and Japan, and possibly some others. SK and Japan don't have pacts with each other though and could end up on different sides though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands#Military_confli...
Which, as I found while googling, has been ... umm ... cancelled by the US already?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/14118/us-not-coming-to-ph-aid-v...
Same as for the Taiwan treaty I guess, the US would be insane to help the re-elected KMT government. I take it back, it's only Japan that would drag the US in.
I think it's not fair that we crippled japan's military autonomy; I mean the military funding in the usa is why we are at the front of the computer revolution.
I just want a japanese competitor to wintel :'(
Crippling their militaries, each country took to dominating economically instead and benefited the world much more than any of their previous military actions did.
Semi related, but anyone interested a good World War II series and has not seen it, I reccomend the BBC's World at War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War). Lots of first hand accounts and interviews of leaders and their staff at the time of WWII.
On the other hand, neither Germany or Japan in WWII had to suffer through the terms and conditions placed on Germany after The Great War (WWI). That was if anything, the worse possible way to help a country recover.
But it seems like a criminal waste of resources to build the developed stuff -- and train lots of people. This decision have no good reason (North Korea? Hardly), it is forced because China haven't democratized so it needs external enemies to generate jingoism and hinder criticism of the Party.
(But sure, maybe China's main motivation is to get natural resources in sea areas that have belonged to other countries for centuries. That is hardly better.)
Edit: Clarity.
Technological improvement that happens because of military spending could have happened anyway under civilian spending, although the side effects resulting from research may well be different.
What's missing from that news article, is the announcement on Friday of the ten naval patrol boats Japan will supply or lend to the Philippines to help protect against Chinese naval and fishing fleet incursions in local waters.
I just wrote a fairly lengthy comment about the possible merits of an expanded Japanese military industrial complex (in helping Japan's languishing economy) given the industrial strengths of Japan that suit arms manufacturing well and potential interest in SE and South Asian nations of non-US non-Russian weaponry, but couldn't get myself to post the comment for fear that because my user ID clearly indicates that I am ethnically Japanese, I could be taken as an imperialist nationalist; a strange psychological phenomenon to say the least. I wonder if there is a name for such a double take?
"Funny"?
(Sorry for a non-serious answer to a serious comment, I'm making a point that you should relax. The lack of taking responsibility (school education etc) for what happened in the 2nd world war might make other countries nervous, but afaik only Germany ever took responsibility for large war atrocities. Not Turkey, Pakistan, the Chinese communist party, etc, etc. No one expects a return of the militaristic Japan.)
Edit: Oh, wtf... see the censoring of the Armenian genocide in Turkey. Also afaik, they don't teach in Pakistan about what happened in Bangladesh in the early 70s.
The Armenian government claims that the Turkish government is responsible for the Armenian genocide, although the Turkish republic (and it's government) didn't exist at the time. This is a bit like blaming the US for atrocities committed by the republic of Texas in California.
The decision about censoring the Armenian genocide is purely political and saddens me, but it's more to do with geopolitics than history.
The revival of a militaristic Japan is actually more likely than you think, tho still very unlikely. The reason is simple, most of the conditions that led to WWII still exist today. Japan is still controlled by a largely hawkish right-wing elite aristocratic class. Japan still brainwashes its population by denying war crimes committed during WWII. Japan still has virtually no natural resources enough to sustain its large population. Japan is still the premier military power in East Asia. Japan still spends an enormous amount of money on its military, however "defensive" it may be (I honestly don't know how a military that has helicopter carriers is defensive in nature). The only difference is that Japan is now militarily aligned with the U.S. and that China is no longer a political, technological, economical and military weakling. The Chinese would like to believe that the only thing standing between a peaceful Japan and a militaristic Japan is the PLA.
With "take responsibility" in English afaik, it means that you take responsibility for the situation (often implied I believe -- that you caused). If something else is implied by the expression, please enlighten me.
I have a hard time believing that Japan would start doing military adventures. It is, more or less, a functioning democracy. See the democratic peace theory, not even USA makes wars against democracies...
(And about your examples... Syria could use some responsibility from the self proclaimed world cop. It is a horror story probably worse than ex Yugoslavia; a shame for Obama. It just doesn't fit his priorities.)
Only direct, total democracy leads to peace. There is no such government in place in the world right now. The US, though it has not formally declared war against other "democracies", it has in many instances, conducted clandestine subversive activities that one nation may use as the casus belli. For example, in 2001, Haiti democratically reelected a Catholic priest as president for the third time. In 2004, with the backing of the CIA, the president Jean-Bertrand Aristide was removed from office in a coup for reasons many accused as Aristide simply not being obedient to Western powers.
The US has also openly supported many oppressive regimes in the past and present time. This is also one of the pretexts Al-Qaeda used as justifications of their attacks against the US.
While Japan may not return to its imperial and militaristic roots in the past, it is perfect as a proxy vanguard against China and Russia. The US is good at proxy wars. As long as Japan is catering to the US's demands, the US may just turn a blind eye and condone Japan's rise as yet another aggressive nation in North East Asia. It only took Germany a decade to become Nazi Germany after all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Haitian_coup_d%27etat
>>Only direct, total democracy leads to peace.
Huh? Check the democratic peace theory on wikipedia. It says that democracies don't make wars. This "direct" and "total" democracy sounds like a place I'd be careful moving to...
The problems with democracies is that foreigners can't vote, the behaviour outside can be as dirty as for a "traditional" country. But the home opinion cares more with more internationalisation, it has gotten much better over 50 years or so. (The Aristide example seems shocking, I thought such US behaviour ended with the cold war.)
You present conspiracy theories about the US -- afaik, it isn't US interests where the sea borders around China are. They are not the ones playing the jingoism card.
Well, maybe not Turkey as it hasn't been defeated in any wars nor committed large war atrocities, but the predecessor state the Ottoman Empire was effectively dismantled by the treaty of Sevres at the end of the first world war, and the only reason the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the German side was the minister of war going behind the prime minister's back and signing a secret defensive treaty with the Germans. The original plan was to remain neutral as the government of the time knew it couldn't fight a war against the British and French or the Germans without losing territory, and that by remaining neutral it would leave options open for alliances should Russia invade.
Because of this, the Ottoman Empire was partitioned and dismantled, leaving only Istanbul and a small surrounding strip of land. It was this that led to former military commanders fighting the independence war that led to the creation of the modern Turkish republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
Is there some Turkish "50 cent army" thing?
More weapons lead to more deaths.
There are better ways to stimulate the economy and technology EG race to Mars
Still, as a Japanese resident, I am happy with this use of my tax money. With the Cold War with China already well underway, I think Japan needs a much stronger military than at any time since losing WWII. Partly because of the economic ascendance of China (which a lot of people these days somehow forget is a brutal, repressive, totalitarian state, not an advanced democracy like Japan) and partly because of the decline of the USA as comptent and rational actor on the world stage. Treaty-bound or not, I don't have much faith that the USA would do much wrt Chinese aggression toward Japan, short of an actual invasion (which hopefully will remain very unlikely).
Now, the recent problem has nothing to do with government structures. It's simply a case of geo-political conflict of interests. South Korea is a full-fledged democracy, if they were enough to avoid any conflicts, there wouldn't be sovereignty dispute on the Liancourt Rocks.
Japan and China are not in a Cold War. That simply wouldn't make sense since no one has threatened anyone with total annihilation under nuclear weapons yet. There's also a zero chance that China will invade the Japanese homeland, never happened, never will happen. It's more likely that they'll take Diaoyu/Senkaku by force if they have to. Diaoyu/Senkaku is virtually indefensible and uninhabitable pieces of rocks, so I highly doubt that the Chinese will do that unless they can control Taiwan and possibly Okinawa - impossible and unlikely task.
His ancestors (possibly, and possibly not), under a completely different regime that is wholly unlike that which governs Japan today, committed atrocities against your ancestors.
He does not remember, because he was not alive to witness or commit said atrocities, or indeed have the tiniest sliver of influence on the regime that did so. You are suggesting moral culpability where there cannot, in any reasonable mind, be any. He has done nothing. He is not his ancestors, and shares exactly zero moral responsibility for their actions when he wasn't even alive.
Other the other hand, I have met many fellow Chinese who have expressed, without a sliver of irony, that the blood spilled 7 decades ago needs to be repaid. Yes, I've had people suggest this to my face seriously. They suggest that committing the same atrocities back against the Japanese is somehow just.
There is plenty of hate to go around, from everyone. The Chinese people aren't saints, and to believe that only the Japanese are capable of such atrocities is the exact hubris needed to lead the world back down that dark path again.
This is a geopolitical conflict between two major powers. Nothing more, nothing less. Any nationalistic cheerleading is strictly playing to the interests of politicians, not any nobler concept like ethnicity, race, or nation.
But, the Chinese government being what it is, you have to consider it when deciding to live or do business here.
Japan was indeed once a dangerous and belligerent actor on the world stage (Nanjing massacre, sex slave camps, attempted genocide, and lots more evil stuff.) However, Japan's military was then thoroughly annihilated, its cities were nuked, its capital was burned to the ground, and most of its leaders were put to death. Throw in a new constitution protecting human rights and the creation of a functioning democratic government, and we end up with an extremely different Japan today, 67 years later.
And (in my opinion), today's Japan is a really great place to live and to do almost any kind of technology-related business.
So I'm not making any statement absolving Japan's historical atrocities (incidentally, I'm American, and both my grandfathers fought against Japan in WWII). But I also don't think they are all that relevant to the times we live in. The perpetrators are now all dead, and the empire they fought for was thoroughly dismantled before I was born.
On the other hand, I'm a lot more interested in what's happening right now. And as far as I can see, Japan doesn't threaten its neighbors or the stability of the region in any way. China, on the other hand, with with its recent threats of military action against Japan, almost daily maritime incursions into Japanese territory, support of North Korea, and so forth, seems extremely unhelpful. (Plus, that whole totalitarianism thing... historically, seems to usually end badly.)
So as a practical matter, I think that the interests of regional stability and peaceful business pursuits would probably be better served if Japan had a military more in line with its economic power, rather than relying on the protection of a country across the ocean, most of whose citizens couldn't find Japan on a map.
As much as I hate the current regime in China, I don't see them being a threat to world peace. The fear of totalitarian regimes is pretty much a BS notion manufactured by the American media. A totalitarian leader is only a threat to world peace under the following conditions: 1) He's extremely charismatic. 2) His country is running out of resources. 3) He believes he is under a great external threat.
China hasn't seen a charismatic leader since Mao, tho running out of resources, it is actively addressing it by developing renewable resources. There is also no country openly hostile to China, including Japan.
I don't have anything against Japan increasing meagerly its military budget, or even repeal Article 9. It's fully their right to do so as long as they are not hostile. But saying Japan is not potentially dangerous is not entirely correct. Japan is still mostly ruled by a right wing aristocracy that have extremely close relationship with the government officials during WWII. Economy has stagnated and arguable steadily declining since the 90s. It has almost no natural resources for an industrialized nation to speak of and it believes it is under constant thread from North Korea. All that it takes is a charismatic Japanese leader and a crappy Chinese defense to see Japan aggression rise up again.
However, what is somewhat alarming is how Japan went from being a civilized country that treated prisoners humanely[1] in WWI with Germans they captured to what happened following The War. Although humans can be brutal, it still shocks me whenever I see examples of how a population can do almost a 180 (regardless of country [not trying to pick on Japan, they were just the discussion topic]) in such a short time. Makes one pause to think how a cultured, intelligent population can go astray so quickly under the wrong leadership.
[1] http://anthrocivitas.net/forum/showthread.php?t=11859
After looking back to what happened from military expansion of Japanese imperialism back in WWII, I'm sure you understand why other Asian countries oppose to the idea and will stay that way.
After looking back to what happened from military expansion of Japanese imperialism back in WWII,
Except that Japan is now a democracy instead of a military-governed totalitarian state
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_9_of_the_Japanese_Const...
Mr Abe has made no secret of his wish to revise three of the country’s basic modern charters: the American-imposed constitution of 1946, committing Japan to pacifism; the education law, which Mr Abe thinks undervalues patriotism; and the security treaty with the United States, under which Japan plays a junior role. To describe the new government as “conservative” hardly captures its true character. This is a cabinet of radical nationalists.
http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21569046-shinzo-abes-appo...
*Thatcher was against reunification, IIRC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_e...
and
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=279 (2002 data, but still quite impressive)