politics

Japan eyes 56% increase in defense budget over five years

70 Comments

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

© 2022 AFP

©2023 GPlusMedia Inc.

70 Comments
Login to comment

Sad Japan is going to spend money mostly on Amerikan weapons that most don't work and are costly to maintain. Your now Amerikas puppet. The money should be spent on Japanese citizens.

-6 ( +18 / -24 )

The US masters have spoken and must be obeyed.

-6 ( +16 / -22 )

The aggresive Russian Slav in Ukraine, Kim's North Korea with missiles, and Xi's China at 5x Japan's military budget. That the loudest voice of them all.

US masters as you say prefer a weak Japan, they wrote article 9 for Japan, we just signed at the dotted line. USA wants a Japan with no nuclear weapons, weak militarily so we signed Plaza Accord, but then complain about Japan not being strong when China, Russia or North Korea makes a move.

-19 ( +5 / -24 )

Japan eyes 56% increase in defense budget over five years

Where the money come from? Japan economy growth has been in constant decline even before pandemic. Will "new capitalism" bring more money?

https://japantoday.com/category/politics/focus-japan%27s-revamped-cabinet-still-needs-to-flesh-out-new-capitalism-push

Or just do instant way by increasing the tax?

-2 ( +16 / -18 )

Where the money come from?

Us the people who pay taxes here. Where else? Oh they could sell all their shares of stocks they hold in previously nationally owned and operated corporations.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Japan's post-war constitution limits its military capacity to ostensibly defensive measures

Cool pic. Looks like something out of a dystopian anime.

Unfortunately more than any external threat what is steering Japan into a dystopia are its short-sighted kleptocratic politicians and Japan Inc.

1 ( +17 / -16 )

China is only going to "make a move" in the US propaganda. They have a reasonable as yet undecided claim over a couple of uninhabited islets in the CHINA sea but that is all.

Oh and a massive, fast growing economy that the US will not be able to keep up with.

-11 ( +7 / -18 )

Got to love the picture! A Japanese Osprey....... and no "protests".

-2 ( +14 / -16 )

I hope the increase in the defense budget will be spent for increasing salaries of the SDF personnel and not on buying overpriced and often defective US-made weapons.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

YubaruToday 07:39 am JST

Got to love the picture! A Japanese Osprey....... and no "protests".

Don't think the Okinawa Times or Ryukyu Shimpo will run a story on those. Ha.

I do love the talk of it being a "bad" thing to have good arms and munitions. Take a look at Ukraine. Invaded by a superior force, but yet is actually winning. Why? Western armament. I think the US contribution is 5 times that of the EU (read on BBC). Some of that stuff must work. And all the we can all just get a long if we don't have an military is BS. You will get run over by China, or Russia (maybe by a Lada now). You prepare for peace by being able to wage war if attacked.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I agree with sentiments regarding not relying on USA, and Japan should seek like minded partners with skin in the game to co-develop defense projects together. The only reason why this has not happened is because of Japan's lack of economic capability to do so which then defaulted to cheap US hardware.

But, therein lies the problem, USA would never sell the 'best' hardware to anyone, eg F22 Raptor, instead USA would only sell F35 Lightning.

Japan is the only country in the world directly facing 3 belligerent nuclear states (China, Russia and NK), with 2 out 3 now considered rogue, and one has been practicing striking Japanese targets repeatedly.

There's a reason many people owns properties in NZ, South America etc., the doomsday scenario is only one button away. But sadly Japan has been far too reliant on USA for defense, and looking at Ukraine, the reliance is very misguided.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

China bluffed and Japanese "leadership" fell for it by bankrupting the country. No country with public debt reaching three times their GDP would raise the so-called defense spending 56%. Tough times are ahead.

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

so all us will sponsor this insane thing by our taxes.

in "peace loving country".

and yes at the end of day Japan will play "surprise" if neigbours like China Russia or DPRK will do same-but they will be considered as "threat"...another proof that Japan is not fully sovereign country and acts in name of US and US lobby interests regardless needs of own citizens and tax payers!

-5 ( +8 / -13 )

So Japan did purchase the American Made Osprey after all. Good on Them!

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Japan’s military is truncated in that it is not a full purpose independent military like that of China, and acts only as an auxiliary force just in areas that are useful to the Americans…

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Take a look at Ukraine. Invaded by a superior force, but yet is actually winning.

Where did you hear this? From Zelensky or from the BBC?

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Good Money Maker.

SADDLY, Now Japan can start making money off exporting Killing Machines too.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Something very, very unfortunate..

Then don't complain about China and Russia doing patrols..

How many social problems would those 43 trillion yen not solve, but instead of building a better country, they keep doing the geopolitical stupid things that the US tells them to do..

So pathetic..

So Japan did purchase the American Made Osprey after all. Good on Them!

Wake up, Osprey is flying scrap, lol..

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Sounds like some people are afraid that Japan might get a better stronger military capable to target enemy missile launch sites in my eyes that's a good thing for Japan makes me feel a little safer knowing we can shoot directly before we are attacked rather than relying on just missile defense systems I hope we get some better ones of them soon as well.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

in my eyes that's a good thing for Japan makes me feel a little safer knowing we can shoot directly before we are attacked

Nope. Article 9.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

in my eyes that's a good thing for Japan makes me feel a little safer knowing we can shoot directly before we are attacked

Nope. Article 9.

Nope counter strike is defense and fits within article 9 constraints.

Preemptive strikes would also fit as feasible defense and well within the constraints of article 9.

Attacking another country just to land grab like Russia would not fit in.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This will spur more spending by China, Taiwan and South Korea. At least those economies continue to grow and can pay for the increases.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Uncle Sam will be pleased whilst the rogue state of the USA increase their coffers.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

I’m not opposed to Japan spending more on its own defense. In these times it is inevitable.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

This will spur more spending by China, Taiwan and South Korea. At least those economies continue to grow and can pay for the increases.

China already spend extraordinary amounts on military offensive hardware, how much more can it spend?

Taiwan and SK both need to get their defense capability AND general population in shape.

The scandi countries are even encouraging their citizens to be preppers, and note they only have to deal with one nuclear state.

https://www.msb.se/en/rad-till-privatpersoner/the-brochure-if-crisis-or-war-comes/

IMHO, Japan is no where near the preparedness of Sweden, and Japan has a lot more to take, especially for China.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

So Japan did purchase the American Made Osprey after all. Good on Them!

Get rid of that junk Osprey.

There's a reason the US military have stopped using them.

Japanese military isn't that stupid and that's why the newest stealth fighter agreement was made with the UK and Italy and not the USA

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

But, therein lies the problem, USA would never sell the 'best' hardware to anyone, eg F22 Raptor, instead USA would only sell F35 Lightning.

Two comments. Number one the F-22 turned out to be hideously expensive to fly. It costs as much per flight hour as a big old B-52 and nearly twice as much per hour as an F-15, which itself is one of the more expensive to fly western fighters. That is why production was cancelled at 180. The Air Force didn't have enough of a flying hour budget to afford more and still fly enough to maintain combat proficiency.

Second, the F-22 was never designed for export. Every part on that airplane is highly classified, which is probably why it is so expensive to operate. Even worn out parts can't be disposed of normally but rather have to be handled as classified material and disposed of in well guarded sites.

The F-35 was designed from the outset to be exported and indeed many nations shared in its development and production. It's less costly to buy and to own. The classifed stuff on it is mostly software and electronics, and the only foreign customer getting the Full Monty in terms of the most classified aspect of low observable tech is the UK.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Preemptive strikes would also fit as feasible defense and well within the constraints of article 9.

Iam all for Japan having a fully capable military.

But to call preemptive strike a pacifist defense and in agreement with article 9 isn't correct !

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Wake up, Osprey is flying scrap, lol..

The heck it is! It had a rough development but today has one of the lower mishap rates among US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft and does things no other aircraft can do. Tilt rotor aircraft are being built by Augusta Westland, the AW609, for the offshore oil market and executive transport and the US Army is testing a new tiltrotor from Bell called the V280 Valor that brings lessons learned from the Osprey. The US Navy is replacing all of their C-2 Greyhound Carrier On-board Delivery (COD) aircraft with the CV-22 Osprey because it has a longer unrefueled range, has the ability to refuel in flight which the old Greyhound never did, carries more and is more efficient. I was appalled at the decision at first but an engineer I trust was on the selection board that considered the alternatives, a new re-engined Greyhound based on the E-2D and what the other offering was basically a fat S-3 Viking with a ramp at the rear. The V-22 carried more, flew farther on a bag of fuel and could be procured unchanged from the Marine Corps version, off the shelf if you will. The Navy saved hundreds of millions, maybe a billion bucks by not having to develop a new aircraft. The final benefit was it was the only one of the three that could carry an F-35 engine internally, which is uncommonly heavy by the standards of tactical jet engines.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

This will spur more spending by China, 

China is going to spend what China is going to spend no matter what Japan does. Their goals are exogenous to anything Japan does. Japan has to react to China's build up and come up with a credible defense that will make China think the price of attacking Japan is too high for any conceivable benefit.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

Preemptive strikes would also fit as feasible defense and well within the constraints of article 9.

Iam all for Japan having a fully capable military.

But to call preemptive strike a pacifist defense and in agreement with article 9 isn't correct !

Sure it is, if the enemy has declared war after diplomatic efforts have failed and they start moving in attack military in an attempt to attack etc. Then a preemptive strike would clearly be a defense strategy that would certainly be within agreement to article 9. which allows Japan to defend itself.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Sad Japan is going to spend money mostly on Amerikan weapons that most don't work and are costly to maintain.

You say American weapons don't work but in every conflict where forces armed with US and other western arms confronted an enemy armed with Soviet/Russian equipment the side fighting with US and western weapons prevailed in combat. Great examples are the 6 Day War, Yom Kippur War, the Bekaa Valley Campaign (82 Syrian owned but Russian operated MiGs lost to no Israeli losses in two blistering days of aerial combat) and the 100 hour rought of the Russian and Chinese armed Iraqis in Desert Storm. The combination of US stealth fighters and NATO aircraft equipped with HARM shut down Serbia's air defenses. The Serbs couldn't turn their radars on because the instant they did they would get drilled by a HARM missile. They had to resort to firing blindly with no guidance hoping they would get lucky and hit something, which they managed to on two occasions. To only lose two aircraft in a campaign like that speaks volumes of the superiority of western arms.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

What happened to the post-war 1% limit of the GDP spent on the military. Or are they expecting the economy to explode so this will be 1% in 2027?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Sad Japan is going to spend money mostly on Amerikan weapons that most don't work and are costly to maintain.

What is sad is the amount of uninformed people making up things as they go along. Japan will spend on mostly Japanese made weapons and missiles and ships and tanks and everything else Japan makes for itself. The few systems Japan may purchase from America are the few things they do not make themselves.

Joint jet fighter program with UK, Italy and Japan. No American involvement.

What is unfortunate is that they will not reach the basic level of 2% of GDP on defense. More like 1.5-1.6%.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

What happened to the post-war 1% limit of the GDP spent on the military. Or are they expecting the economy to explode so this will be 1% in 2027?

They have a majority in both the the upper house and lower house, the upper house is above two thirds and what that means is the LDP can rewrite the constitution to suit there needs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Dissuade all young people from joining militaries.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

You say American weapons don't work but in every conflict where forces armed with US and other western arms confronted an enemy armed with Soviet/Russian equipment the side fighting with US and western weapons prevailed in combat.

Sorry to burst your bubble but Pakistan could not prevail over India in the 1965 war inspite of being better armed with superior American tanks and fighter aircrafts. It lost 100 Patton tanks and 40 more were captured whereas India lost only 10 tanks in one of the battles on the plains of Punjab. The war was a military stalemate but proves your claim hollow anyways.

Then in the 1971 war Pakistan was truncated into 2 pieces inspite of you Americans intervening on the side of Pakistan. Despite your military knowledge which I don't raise questions about, your statements display a superiority complex which comes naturally to most of your countrymen who believe in American exceptionalism.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

That 56% increase will be meaningless if all of it are spent on defensive equipments. As shown in Ukraine, a country that doesn't possess offensive capabilities are bound to be bled to death by its invaders. Japan can buy all of the anti-ballistic missile system that the United States can offer them but it doesn't mean that Japan will be totally safe from NK/CCP/Russia's missile attacks. The only thing that can protect Japan is the ability to strike back and inflict destructions on its enemy.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well, then don't complain about a weak yen. Most of that money is not going to be spent domestically, right?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

I agree with sentiments regarding not relying on USA, and Japan should seek like minded partners with skin in the game to co-develop defense projects together.

The US-Japan mutual defense treaty represents enough "skin" in the game to wrap a sumo beya. And the thing about US defense equipment? It works.

Japan needs a strengthened Air-defense component with a force projection capability. It needs a strengthened Naval component - The MDF has perhaps the world's best ASW capabilities and a fine surface and submarine fleet. It just needs more ships to counter the Chinese threat. In addtion, there needs to be a small but capable amphibious force that can hold and if necessary retake Japanese island territory.

Finally, will SOMEONE please get the govts' head out of whatever orafice it is in and invest in the Aegis ashore system? The small but managable risk of a booster falling on Japanese soil is far outweighed by it's effectiveness at area defense against the real, VERY real ballistic missile threat we face. Patriots are point defense systems at best. The sea-based versions have to be in the right place at the right time and protected against threats. A shore-based system to protect the archipelago is by far the best solution.

I understand that this is expensive. But without security, none of our other freedoms or social programs mean much of anything and the neighborhood is getting dangerous.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Sorry to burst your bubble but Pakistan could not prevail over India in the 1965 war inspite of being better armed with superior American tanks and fighter aircrafts. It lost 100 Patton tanks and 40 more were captured whereas India lost only 10 tanks in one of the battles on the plains of Punjab. The war was a military stalemate but proves your claim hollow anyways.

That is as relevant as stories about the English long-bow. The current year is 2022 and American weapons are BY FAR the world's best when employed correctly.

While it is difficult to correctly ascertain the quality of current Chinese systems, in the past they were cheap knock-offs of Russian versions. Now it seems like they are copies of stolen or reverse-engineered American systems. As for Russian designs.... Ukraine field of operations anyone? The Russian stuff is junk by comparison and the Russians don't even employ it's junk well.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Major coup for the defense industry and elite business partners.

Wars are waged in the interests of power and gain, not to protect or "save" the average citizen.

The quality of life for most will gradually decline in calculated increments (to avoid citizens revolt) from now.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

That is as relevant as stories about the English long-bow. The current year is 2022 and American weapons are BY FAR the world's best when employed correctly.

The original poster gave examples of the 6 day war (1967) and Yom Kippur War (1973) so thanks for butting in but I gave 2 examples of wars from the same era when superior American weapons could not turn the tide. Maybe I did help improve your knowledge somewhat though.

And by the way I never disputed that US has the best military tech as of today but I only responded to Desert Tortoise's hollow claim that every conflict where one side was armed with US supplied weapons and the other side had Soviet arms ended in victory for the American ally.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

There's a reason the US military have stopped using them.

What an ignorant statement here. For someone who claims to live in Okinawa, statements like this are proof you dont. October marked the 10th year of Osprey's being deployed in Okinawa, and they can be seen flying just about every day of the week, in various locations all over the island.

Read this:

The heck it is! It had a rough development but today has one of the lower mishap rates among US Navy and Marine Corps aircraft and does things no other aircraft can do. Tilt rotor aircraft are being built by Augusta Westland, the AW609, for the offshore oil market and executive transport and the US Army is testing a new tiltrotor from Bell called the V280 Valor that brings lessons learned from the Osprey. The US Navy is replacing all of their C-2 Greyhound Carrier On-board Delivery (COD) aircraft with the CV-22 Osprey because it has a longer unrefueled range, has the ability to refuel in flight which the old Greyhound never did, carries more and is more efficient. I was appalled at the decision at first but an engineer I trust was on the selection board that considered the alternatives, a new re-engined Greyhound based on the E-2D and what the other offering was basically a fat S-3 Viking with a ramp at the rear. The V-22 carried more, flew farther on a bag of fuel and could be procured unchanged from the Marine Corps version, off the shelf if you will. The Navy saved hundreds of millions, maybe a billion bucks by not having to develop a new aircraft. The final benefit was it was the only one of the three that could carry an F-35 engine internally, which is uncommonly heavy by the standards of tactical jet engines.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

japan is just paying for the US interest. japan is a US proxy for future war. sadly Japanese are slaves working and paying for the military proxy.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why the massive amounts of money being spent?

What are the Japanese defending?

Islands without any resources?

A fool’s errand…

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@jo6pac What makes you think all the weapons will be made in the US. Japan can build military hardware also. Wow how narrow minded as you put it puppet minded. The defense spending can also increase employment in Japan as its own citizen can work to design, test and manufacture these weapons. LOL you said amerikan weapons don't work,its sad you think that way but ask Russia if they work? Why would Japan buy weapons they know won't work? Where's your proof? Don't ask me for my proof because you would definitely have to have a need to know! I see it touch it build it!!!

Sad Japan is going to spend money mostly on Amerikan weapons that most don't work and are costly to maintain. Your now Amerikas puppet. The money should be spent on Japanese citizens.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Desert Tortoise THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BEAST THE RAIDER 21 the US REPLACEMENT FOR THE B2 BOMBER I have been hinting for the longest it was coming when I said go Raiders its out there goggle it. If you think the F-22 is something I can't say more about this bomber but its a wreaking crew!!

But, therein lies the problem, USA would never sell the 'best' hardware to anyone, eg F22 Raptor, instead USA would only sell F35 Lightning.

Two comments. Number one the F-22 turned out to be hideously expensive to fly. It costs as much per flight hour as a big old B-52 and nearly twice as much per hour as an F-15, which itself is one of the more expensive to fly western fighters. That is why production was cancelled at 180. The Air Force didn't have enough of a flying hour budget to afford more and still fly enough to maintain combat proficiency.

Second, the F-22 was never designed for export. Every part on that airplane is highly classified, which is probably why it is so expensive to operate. Even worn out parts can't be disposed of normally but rather have to be handled as classified material and disposed of in well guarded sites.

The F-35 was designed from the outset to be exported and indeed many nations shared in its development and production. It's less costly to buy and to own. The classifed stuff on it is mostly software and electronics, and the only foreign customer getting the Full Monty in terms of the most classified aspect of low observable tech is the UK.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The US Army just announced they are going to replace their entire fleet of UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters with the Bell V-280 Valor tilt rotor aircraft.

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/

If you look at the image you can see Bell has addressed one of the Navy's complaints about the V-22, namely when the engines are in the vertical position for take off and landing on ships, the engine exhaust is very close to the deck and can damage the non-skid material used on most warship decks. The Valor tilts the rotors but not the engines, keeping the exhausts well above the deck, even though the Army is probably not going to use these off ships very often (they do so occasionally and train off Navy ships regularly).

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Desert Tortoise THEY DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE BEAST THE RAIDER 21 the US REPLACEMENT FOR THE B2 BOMBER I have been hinting for the longest it was coming when I said go Raiders its out there goggle it. If you think the F-22 is something I can't say more about this bomber but its a wreaking crew!!

Sigh. I watched the B-21's unveiling. It was livestreamed. I've been aware of it for years. If there is a livestream of the NGAD unveiling I will watch that too.

What is out there that came from Northrop-Grumman between the B-2 and B-21 is the RQ-180. Other than acknowledging its existence during a budget dispute with a Palmdale area Congressman who wanted to stop the Air Force from cancelling some lots of the RQ-4 Global Hawk, the Air Force has never said what it is or revealed what it looks like.

Years ago the Navy and Air Force ran a joint program called the X-47 to test ideas for a stealthy recce / attack platform. Once that test program was done the Chair Force went dark while the Navy debated within itself whether the resulting UAS should be for surveillance, attack or both and how much stealth it needed. The Navy for some reason is not so interested in stealth, think it costs too much for what you get, though evolving Chinese air defenses are changing that view. The end result is the MQ-25, a tanker for now while the Navy continues its internal debate about what they want it to do when it grows up and goes to college.

Meanwhile the Chair Force apparently secretly produced some kind of large long range stealthy recce / attack platform that some say is B-2-ish looking thing with two engines the size of a 737 that can fly around China and plink out air defense sites unseen by Chinese radars. If true that may explain why N-G could put together a new strategic bomber in only seven years from program inception (most new aircraft programs take 12-14 years from program inception to a working prototype) while staying on budget. I'm impressed. The Raider may be drawing a lot from the RQ-180.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in my eyes that's a good thing for Japan makes me feel a little safer knowing we can shoot directly before we are attacked

Nope. Article 9.

Nope counter strike is defense and fits within article 9 constraints.

Yes, a counter strike is allowed. But the original quote referred to shooting "before" being attacked, not a counter strike. So my original response was correct:

Nope. Article 9.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

if the enemy has declared war after diplomatic efforts have failed and they start moving in attack military in an attempt to attack etc. Then a preemptive strike would clearly be a defense strategy that would certainly be within agreement to article 9.

Japanese constitutional experts disagree with you. Are you a Japanese constitutional expert?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

"Japan eyes 56% increase in defense budget over five years"

To be balanced by an equal cut in Human services devoted to the welfare of the Nihonjin population. Such is the life of a militarily occupied vassal state of a conscienceless Empire... but, maybe, if that bothers you, take some food over to your fragile elderly neighbors who are living on Cup Ramen...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Got to love the picture! A Japanese Osprey....... and no "protests".

A Japanese Osprey, all right. JSDF has 17 of them., but they are all U.S.-made, just like many other slates of military equipment. The government is considering Saga Airport to be the site of their deployment. But there's a strong opposition from local residents and the issue is in the limbo.

An Osprey costs $7,200,000 a piece and so Japan must have paid 122.4 million dollars for the 17 aircraft. A lucrative business for the U.S. government, isn't it?

Besides, the Kishida government is planning to buy 500 Tomahawk missiles from the U.S. in five years from now.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

An Osprey costs $7,200,000 a piece

I think you have that wrong. That would be the price of nice business helicopter. Many twin turbine business helicopters cost twice that. Looking at the 2022 Navy budget submissions on their Comptrollers website the Average Procurement Unit Cost of a V-22 is $83.7 million US Dollars. What the Japanese paid depends on what equipment their versions come with and what kind of maintenance package they bought. A basic UH-60 or AW-149 costs over $13 million each.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Correction:

An Osprey costs $72 million according to Wikipedia, not 7.2 million. So, the total cost of 17 Ospreys Japan paid to the U.S. was $1.2 trillion., not 122.4 million dollars.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Try billion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is a good idea that Japan is able to defend itself. One never knows when another Trump will come into office.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A lucrative business for the U.S. government, isn't it?

Actually no, the US government does not manufacture these aircraft. It's private corporations that make the money. Nice try though.

It's like saying it's nice business for the Japanese government when they purchase Japanese manufactured weapons systems, they dont, the corporations that make them do!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Japanese Osprey, all right. JSDF has 17 of them., but they are all U.S.-made, just like many other slates of military equipment.

You were one of the staunchest opponents to the aircraft, and now that the government here has procured them and has been successfully been using them, you are all on board!

You can thank the "research" and "development" and the lives of those who died, during development and initial rollout for providing the JSDF a safe aircraft for use in the defense of Japan.

You really should be grateful!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Awa no GaijinDec. 6  12:24 pm JST

Preemptive strikes would also fit as feasible defense and well within the constraints of article 9.

Iam all for Japan having a fully capable military.

But to call preemptive strike a pacifist defense and in agreement with article 9 isn't correct !

Article 9 simply prohibits Japan from attacking another country. If another country is preparing to attack Japan and the launch sites can be taken out before untold numbers of people die, that is self-defense. It's your interpretation that isn't correct, as you would rather have civilians die first, right?

First strike capability as well as counter strike capability act as a deterrent to prevent other counties from launching an attack.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

voiceofokinawaToday  07:48 am JST

Got to love the picture! A Japanese Osprey....... and no "protests".

A Japanese Osprey, all right. JSDF has 17 of them., but they are all U.S.-made, just like many other slates of military equipment. 

No, nearly all other JSDF aircraft, as well as military equipment are made in Japan either wholly or under license. The MV-22 and the BAE AAV7A1 Amphibious vehicle for the JGSDF Amphibious Rapid Deployment Brigade are exceptions. Howver the latter will be augmented with a Japan made AAV model this year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Article 9 simply prohibits Japan from attacking another country.

Yes exactly iam well aware.

Preemptive strike is attacking but however they've chosen to name it counterstrike which it isn't !

Waiting for a strike before defending by attacking/ counterstrike isn't their plan.

Attacking before being attacked is their plan.

And the Japanese people are footing the bill for Japan to run around the world with the US military pretending to be a peace keeping force .

Spoiler alert - thats not pacifist

The Japanese constitution as it stands is a fake pacifist constitution and it's only getting worse.

Defense by making oneself a target is a recipie for disaster

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

An Osprey costs $72 million according to Wikipedia, not 7.2 million. 

That is an old number. Learn how to use the comptrollers websites for each branch of the US military. The US Federal budget is a public document. All of the services submit budget requests that are also public documents. You can find these on each government agencies comptrollers web page. For military programs something called the "P-40 Document" has unit costs by year for the five fiscal years covered by the budget request. For 2022 the US Navy paid $83.7 million per unit. I did not take the time to look up the 2022 unit cost for a USAF CV-22 but it is out there if someone wants to look.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Preemptive strike is attacking but however they've chosen to name it counterstrike which it isn't !

On that you are wrong. Counter strike is not the same thing as a pre-emptive strike. It is what you do after you have been attacked.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Attacking before being attacked is their plan.

No. Article 9.

Preemptive strike is attacking but however they've chosen to name it counterstrike

No.

I remember a certain someone once saying "words have meaning". You can't just redefine them, and think that makes an argument, it makes you look silly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yubaru,

Actually no, the US government does not manufacture these aircraft. It's private corporations that make the money. 

Sure, you are right. But aren’t the big manufacturers of military equipment and the Pentagon all part of the same gang, called the military-industrial complex, a term first used by a departing president?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sure, you are right. But aren’t the big manufacturers of military equipment and the Pentagon all part of the same gang, called the military-industrial complex, a term first used by a departing president?

If you worked in that industry you would know the relationship between the US military civilians and uniformed members and the defense industry can be highly adversarial. The military knows the defense contractors lie, cheat and screw them at every opportunity, but the laws governing government procurement are such and the defense contractors armies of well paid and aggressive litigators are such that it often feels as if one is fighting with one arm tied behind one's back.

Most of those companies are run by bean counters, not engineers. The CEO of Northrop-Grumman is an MBA graduate. The CEO of Boeing has an accounting degree. The CEO of Raytheon has a BA in Economics and a CPA. Most of their pay is in the form of stock and stock options. About 85% of their pay package is based on their company's stock price and cash flow. Guess what? Being over budget and behind schedule greatly improves both while being on time and on schedule is perversely less profitable. So it is no surprise that these companies excel at being over budget and behind on schedule. If you want to see what happens when the DoD tries to cancel a contract where the contractor went over budget read the sad saga of the A-12 Avenger II

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Desert Tortoise,

Such internal rivalries as you talk about have nothing to do with us outsiders. Rivalry exists between military services, but does it matter when we talk about the reduction of the burden we shoulder derived from those U.S. forces and bases?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Such internal rivalries as you talk about have nothing to do with us outsiders. Rivalry exists between military services, but does it matter when we talk about the reduction of the burden we shoulder derived from those U.S. forces and bases?

What I describe affects affordability, and thus your taxes, greatly. I know from close personal experience that the taxpayer is grossly over charged by these defense contractors in a myriad of underhanded sneaky ways, but unless governments are willing to build aircraft, ships, missiles, land vehicles and everything else in government owned factories with government labor, they are stuck buying and being bent over by these big defense contractors. For highly skilled and degreed labor government employees cost less per hour than their industry counterparts and government agencies are not allowed to make a profit. Government depots can maintain equipment at lower cost than any contractor can but too often these big defense contractors claim proprietary rights to the tech in their offerings (never mind much of the tech originates in government labs) and claim nobody but they can ever have the data necessary to perform maintenance. It is as if the manufacturer of your car refuses to publish a manual and demands you only take your car to a dealer for repair. And worse yet the courts side with the big defense conglomerates against the taxpayer and the warfighter.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites