'Pacifist' Japan is tooling up for war | Hacker News Reader

'Pacifist' Japan is tooling up for war

irishtimes.com

59 pointsjseliger80 comments

The entire speech is a great read, especially if you happen to be the type of American that the PM is referring to, fatigued, et al.

https://japan.kantei.go.jp/101_kishida/statement/202404/11sp...

Never though I would be spending my Tuesday evening reading, Japanese Prime Minister speeches :-) but agree. Quite an interesting, focused and clear speech.

> Russia’s unprovoked, unjust, and brutal war of aggression against Ukraine has entered its third year. As I often say, Ukraine of today may be East Asia of tomorrow. Furthermore, Russia continues to threaten the use of nuclear weapons, which has contributed to worldwide concern that yet another catastrophe by nuclear weapon use is a real possibility. In this reality, close coordination between Japan and the U.S. is required more than ever to ensure that the deterrence our Alliance provides remains credible and resilient.

I appreciate how clear and straightforward the speech is. Ukraine was a wakeup call that Pax Americana is over and China is the next threat.

> As I often say, Ukraine of today may be East Asia of tomorrow.

Well, I get that Kishida wants to position himself firmly on "Team America" side, but this is a bit rich, coming from a country that did to East Asia what Russia did to its neighbors.

We can keep looking back, or we can look forward.

It was a completely different country and culture back then.

Japan is preparing for a 2 front war - Taiwan and North Korea.

It's safe to assume that any war over Taiwan will inevitably include Japan, and that any escalation in TW will leave an opening for a similar escalation on the DMZ in Korea.

Also, Japan does have a land dispute with Russia over the Kuril Islands, but that will probably never be a hot war.

Really sad it's come to this for the world. It's presented as a push forward, but it seems so unnecessary that the world be forced to arm up at this point:

> "This self-doubt is arising at a time when our world is at history’s turning point. The post-cold war era is already behind us, and we are now at an inflection point that will define the next stage of human history," he said.

Given where we are and that things seem to be slipping, I'm a little less reserved about some of my enjoyment of following the defense industry. Japan is an interesting case. It seems like Japan, the British, and North Grumann are going to build a YF23 like craft, merging the British Tempest program with Japans F-X and getting help from other nations. https://newatlas.com/military/uk-japan-italy-team-up-6th-gen...

There's a lot American defense industry is doing well, but also damn too often it takes us forever to get stuff integrated & going. The F-35 is talking about basically throwing out the upgrade plan that was in place, & going for an agile let's see what we can actually do & reassess as we go strategy. Having the rest of the world no longer put all their eggs in the US defense basket is likely terrible for us, but I admit I am a bit excited and hopeful that we'll have more than the messed up carved-up MIC petri dish model to see and learn from. F-35 program could reshuffle long-term upgrade plan, deliver TR-3 jets early without full capability https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04/f-35-program-could-reshu...

Japan needs to; for the same reason Australia needs Aukus.

The USA has withdrawn from being Team America: World Police

Taiwan will fall; hence their rush to move their manufacturing to SK, Japan, and USA.

It's very difficult to see how India, SK and Japan doesn't get pulled into this. Harder to predict for Vietnam, Philo, Indo, etc.

The scary thing, how does this conflict not go nuclear?

Watching how the USA has abandoned its ally, Ukraine and just let innocent people and brave soldiers die, Japan would be crazy not too start gaining back their independence.

Not sure what happened to the USA but I never thought I’d see it side with autocratic war criminals. Quite concerning for all our allies.

If the orange man wins again this year, we’ll god help everyone.

The US did not want to start a world war over Ukraine. It stepping in would have meant precisely that.

Not stepping in is exactly what is going to cause a world war.

So you would prefer the war in Ukraine to go nuclear? This isn't a hypothetical.

What is even less hypotethical is that dozens of countries are now actively making plans to arm themselves with nuclear weapons, as the US refuses to take the risk to step in.

Dare to guess what are the risks of nuclear war (even by accident) when that becomes the new normal?

The Russian aren't going to make less nuclear threats if the US keeps folding.

They're referring to the sudden end of support for Ukraine, done at the behest of Donald Trump. Republican lawmakers were actually considering continuing it until he demanded they not do so.

where does this logic stop? At whose borders?

Because if Ukraine falls I can guarantee you that first it will be minor incursions into Poland and/or Baltics airspace. Then false flags attacks. Then more. Each time testing "escalation management" and sewing disagreements into political scenes in the West. Then more.

putin has said many times that he considers collapse of USSR the greatest tragedy ever. He wants revenge for this. And he is getting it.

The US could've and still could flood ukraine with weapons. It wouldn't even be the first proxy war between the US and Russia.

That’s how you start a world war. Once US is perceived as weak and indecisive all kinds of genocidal monsters crawl out to do what they want.

No.

The American right wanted to score political points on Biden and refused to pass a very popular funding bill.

The consequence has been one of the most pointless, damaging failures of American policy in a very long time.

It's one of the most shameful things I've ever seen.

And the United Kingdom and France didn't want to start a world war over Austria or the Sudetenland. Appease Russia/Iran/China at your own peril.

We have to let bad people take the important step of attacking before we defend. Otherwise it becomes thoughtcrime.

USA abandonment of Ukraine clearly shows to everyone that promises from USA mean nothing at times of real hardship. The sad lesson of all this is that if country wishes to be both safe and independent it must posses its own nuclear weapons and means of delivery.

Peace through superior firepower or at least mutually assured destruction is a thing.

Did the US have a defense treaty with Ukraine? As in, something ratified by the Senate?

While I agree with the sentiment and the conclusion, Ukraine was never an ironclad, formal ally, in the sense that NATO countries are, or Japan or Australia. The closest to a formal alliance is the 1994 agreement, whereby Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for its borders and sovereignty being guaranteed, by Russia, UK and USA.

So within these parameters, the USA has actually done a lot, and a lot more than nothing. I'm not sure at what point it has fulfilled its duty.

I'm not defending the US decision though, it seems that bang for buck of helping Ukraine is one of the best spent defence money in this century so far.

"USA has actually done a lot" - so did USA guarantee Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not?

The worst thing to do (which USA did) is to make a promise and not deliver. Had Ukraine knew that USA will abandon it, it might have entered negotiations in early 2023 from a much more favorable position.

>did USA guarantee Ukraine's " borders and sovereignty"? Or did it not?

Seems like the U.S. did not guarantee Ukraine's borders and sovereignty. Or at least not according to my reading of The Budapest Memorandum:

https://policymemos.hks.harvard.edu/files/policymemos/files/...

...right?

Seems to have done a ton, based on the amount of support and aid?

So it brokered a protection deal in exchange for nuclear weapons and then... reneged on its promise?

Well, one of the other three nations in on the deal reneged so hard they invaded (twice, or once with a delayed extension of the invasion depending on perspective). The US has supplied materiel and training, but not personnel (in the combatant sense, at least). And if the House would pass a funding bill for it, more would be supplied.

And to be incredibly clear, ¶ 4 of the Budapest Memorandum committed the United States "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine...if Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used" [1].

Assuming we sever the last "or" such that the clause activates if "Ukraine should become a victim of an act of aggression," the commitment was to seek UNSC action to provide assistance. America sought that. And it's directly providing assistance. America never guaranteed the security of Ukraine.

[1] https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/P...

Well, it poured tens of billions of military aid on Ukraine over 2 years, supplied tons of intelligence, training, conceded to US made arms being transferred. I'd say that is a lot.

More would be better, but I don't think we are in the realms of "reneging on promises".

The original agreement was very vague. Was it to mean that the US would defend Ukraine will all it's military might, up to conscripting Americans and sending out nukes? Surely not.

Anyone who is honestly advocating for an Iraq-era world police mobilization (with the bonus threat of nuclear decimation of the host country) is clearly trolling. The exact same people would be decrying occupation and the loss of US lives within x number of years if the inverse has happened. So they were ready to complain either way.

As it is, the administration has threaded the political needle perfectly (or luckily) and the Ukrainian people have proven that their bravery and resolve has been vastly underrated.

Giving them some weapon systems (Patriot defense batteries, HIMARS, Artillery, radar) but then not supplying ammo or parts or maintenance capabilities is an extremely punk move, extremely shitty, and was never the intent.

Helping this new found ally is the easiest thing in the world, is such an incredibly important bulwark for the whole world.

But there are nutjobs, absolute crazy shit insane people that rail against Mainstream Media, for whom doing sensible things dangerously allows reality in. They can't support this because to support it would be to support something that the rest of the politicians support, and their attempts to politically "alt" themselves would be in trouble by working with others. These vainglorious fools have invited madness in, and held up support that should never have been delayed.

I personally think this was all well orchestrated by Russia, social media has given bad state actors the ability to "backdoor" the minds of millions in the west. It's really quite genius.

Duty is not the right way to frame the situation. This is more about the overall goals of US foreign policy.

If the US wants to maintain a favorable status quo and its position as the dominant superpower, it must support Ukraine until Russia admits failure and withdraws its troops. The current world order is based on a simple deal. The US supports friendly countries around the world and provides them security against regional threats. Those countries in turn support US policy goals in faraway issues they wouldn't otherwise care about.

On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support Ukraine.

> On the other hand, if the US is happy to be just a regional power that doesn't care about what happens on the other side of the Atlantic and the Pacific, it has no duty to support Ukraine.

The consequences of such a mindset need to be understood: this would be catastrophic for US business interests and economy. Not saying you're unaware, but others might be.

Many Americans romanticize the idea of business interests and the economy failing. We are well past levels of wealth inequality that aught to cause bloodshed. The US will have its hands full with its own insurrections. A civil war would hamper power projection around the globe. Its good to see Japan released from its pacifist obligations.

Now the US can get onto the business of civil war 2. End slavery again.

This, I fully agree with. My point is only, sad as it is, I don't see America's disengagement as in flagrant violation to it's pre-2022 commitments.

The sad counterpart to the great institution that is NATO is that NATO countries won't go out of their way to defend non-NATO countries. NATO already is a stretch of capabilities and goodwill, and I think it's telling that the fractures that show go along cultural boundaries: the "loosest" parts of NATO right now are US and Turkey.

Again, I think NATO and US would be stupid to not continue supporting Ukraine, just not because they are reneging on an alliance.

The world does not need a single superpower - it needs multiple medium powers, preferably equal powers. A single superpower is like a very big market monopoly. Nobody besides the owner is happy - including the employees of the monopoly.

Looks like giving up nuclear weapons in exchange for "protection" is the stupidest thing a government can possibly do.

Won’t ever happen again after this.

Nuclear weapons they weren't able to use?

The USA no longer has the productive power to win any sort of protracted conflict. For example, the USA has virtually no ship building capacity, being almost entirely reliant on Japan and South Korea. It’s a bad look for a country that fancies itself a naval superpower.

> USA has virtually no ship building capacity, being almost entirely reliant on Japan and South Korea

We have massive naval shipyards that build our ships and boats. We tooled them down in the 90s to extract a peace dividend.

If orange man wins my children won't go die for Ukraine? This is a bad thing?

> If orange man wins my children won't go die for Ukraine? This is a bad thing?

We were never sending American troops to Ukraine. What has happened is the chances of American troops having to go somewhere else in the world, or being directly attacked overseas, has gone way up.

What is OP suggesting we do then? We've given Ukraine billions in money and resources, the only other thing left is boots on the ground, no?

>billions in money and resources

31 Abrams and 190 Bradleys, zero planes, zero cruise missiles. All while there are 3 million DPICM, thousands of Bradleys and hundreds of ATACMS waiting to be scrapped in US, all decommissioned and on a list to be send to expensive recycling.

> We've given Ukraine billions in money and resources

On a drip feed. That means when a strategic opening emerges, e.g. Russian warships within Storm Shadow range, they got one or two pot shots off before running out of ammo, letting the Russians retreat and adapt.

Ukraine needs more air-defence batteries and ammunition. It needs F-16s. (For both offense and defense.) And it needs the ability to strike valid military targets in Russia, the way it has been doing with its own weapons, the way Russia has been doing to it.

Are you seriously implying that Biden will institute the draft?

Volunteer military can still die.

No, I assume op wanted boots on the ground for Ukraine. I'm not sure what else is left considering the billions in support we've given them, which I do support.

I simply think the US should send old unwanted equipment and air defense weaponry to Ukraine. Not boots in the ground or anything even close to that.

Russia is ripping Ukraine apart because they don't have air defense missiles left.

If Orange Man wins your children won't see the US with the number of friends and influence it used to have.

And this isn't a patronizing statement - it's literal. The US has allies and friendly nations who are aligned with the US because they want to, not because they are forced to, or compelled by treaties.

In my country, an old dictator used to say: Orgulhosamente sós.

Why is the US the only one being argued to have abandoned its ally despite being the single biggest provider of aid?

Why do most of the European allies literally next door to Ukraine need to have their hand twisted or given additional American guarantees to provide aid to a mutual ally despite already having the nuclear umbrella and NATO's mutual defense guarantees? Are they not siding with autocratic war criminals? Don't they also believe in the "rules based world order"?

As it stands the US already has its energy focused on helping their other ally slaughter children, and Trump seems just as keen to keep that going. It's clearly a more important task to the ruling class.

> Why is the US the only one being argued to have abandoned its ally despite being the single biggest provider of aid?

We’re Europe’s security guarantor. And the U.S. and U.K. signed the Budapest Memorandum. While we aren’t in breach of that Memo (as Moscow is), we are sort of violating its spirit.

>We’re Europe’s security guarantor.

I'd love to see polling on this this question:

"Is the United States Europe's security guarantor?"

...for the U.S., countries in Europe, and other countries around the world.

https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48744-most-americ...

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/09/nato-seen-favo...

> Why is the US the only one being argued to have abandoned its ally despite being the single biggest provider of aid?

The US has only been accused of abandoning Ukraine since (approximately; there’s some blurriness because of some trickling out of previously-approved, unused, aid) it stopped providing aid. That’s the point of alleged abandonment.

The US was the single biggest provider of aid earlier in the war. It still is, if you count only military aid. The EU has surpassed the US in overall aid. In addition to that, the combined contributions from EU member states may also exceed US aid. They certainly do if you also include other European countries.

It isn't, people think NATO and Europe are letting them down too. However, the USA is the most capable and outspoken when it comes to the ideals Ukraine is fighting to defend. Freedom, democracy, justice, are all major ideals that countless American and innocents have been killed to defend. Whole countries have been ripped apart over this, Vietnam, Syria, Iraq...

This makes the abandonment of Ukraine now even more noteworthy considered they're bravely trying to defend all the things we thought the USA was about.

It seems shocking, considering until we now, we considered Russia an adversary to the the west and not someone we'd be helping win.

How many wars in Africa are you signing the U.S. up for?

And where are you from? What has your country done for Ukraine?

The USA sir.

> Watching how the USA has abandoned its ally, Ukraine […]

Has the US abandoned Ukraine, or has the GOP abandoned Ukraine? There's a difference.

US. Obama a famous republican refused to help "not to provoke russia". On the current delayed vote it was a sizeable amount of democrats that refused to sign to force the vote (coincidentally the same ones that signed the letter calling for Ukraine to surrender and get exterminated by russia)

>USA has abandoned its ally,

While we should probably do more, since when are the U.S. and Ukraine allies? Is every country that hasn't engaged in recent hostilities allies?

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Don't know why someone flagged u/lioeters message: "The U.S. is tooling up Japan for war."

It's so true. Japan "has been buying" high tech war tools from USA, like self-dismantling F-35s, for some time now.

In case you did not notice...If China takes over Taiwan, Chinese troops will be 60 miles from Japanese territory...

I don't know why you are being downvoted.

At one point "pacifist" Japan was one of the top world spenders on "defense". It's a sham and has always been so.

The only benefit was that Japan didn't have to join the initial phase of any of America's invasions on behalf of its asian/middle east ally/ies.

They have been spending big since the mid 90s. It's too bad that the SDF is still incompetent compared to its neighbours.

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/JPN/jap...

Silly move.

It couldn't beat the US the last time. Why would it think it can beat China which at least 4 times the size of the US?

The kamikaze (Japanese: 神風, lit. 'divine wind') were two winds or storms that are said to have saved Japan from two Mongol fleets under Kublai Khan. These fleets attacked Japan in 1274 and again in 1281.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamikaze_(typhoon)

There is a difference between invading a larger country and defending your country from a larger neighbor. Should Japan not prepare to defend itself from China?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com