Japan increases defence budget
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: oxfordshire
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Japan increases defence budget
Apologies if this has already been posted:
Japan approves increase in defence budget.
BBC News - Japan approves record 4.98 trillion yen defence budget
Japan approves increase in defence budget.
BBC News - Japan approves record 4.98 trillion yen defence budget
In the article I love the bit about the V-22 purchase lol
'These include 20 maritime patrol aircraft, five crossover aircraft - which have both airplane and helicopter functionalities - and six stealth fighters.'
Cheers
'These include 20 maritime patrol aircraft, five crossover aircraft - which have both airplane and helicopter functionalities - and six stealth fighters.'
Cheers
If you take into account growth rates, currency fluctuations, and the like, then Japan is actually seeing a real-term decrease in its defence spending.
I believe the BBC was the first to put out the 'record increase' story, and every other outlet has followed suit like lemmings.
I believe the BBC was the first to put out the 'record increase' story, and every other outlet has followed suit like lemmings.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did my Masters thesis on the Japanese Defence Policy...basically the second or third biggest budget on the planet, which is intriguing for a country forbidden by its constitution (which was written by the US BTW) from having armed forces.
For anybody interested in the mindset of this odd country I recommend...
Not least because the Japanese hate this book.
For anybody interested in the mindset of this odd country I recommend...
Not least because the Japanese hate this book.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One only has to have dealings with the Japanese in business to understand precisely how devious they can be.
A classic example would be the Japanese take-or-pay contract agreements made with West Australian iron ore producing companies in the late 1980's/early 1990's.
When the Japanese economy entered its severe downturn after the countrys asset-bubble collapse in the late 1990's, the Japanese steel mills sought to break their take-or-pay contracts with the iron-ore producers of Western Australia.
They essentially refused to honour their written contracts.
The iron ore companies were furious and pointed out the contract terms that had been signed by the Japanese. If they didn't take the agreed amount, they were obliged to pay the minimum.
"The precise T&C's are right there, in black and white!!", said the iron ore producers contract negotiators and enforcers.
"Ahhhhh, so!", said the Japanese steel mill representatives. "But we do not see these T&C's as black and white! We see these T&C's as many shades of grey!"
The iron ore company representatives were all stunned. What the Japanese effectively meant was that no contract or agreement they ever signed meant anything, if Japan (note - "Japan" - not "Japanese steel mills") potentially suffered losses caused by economic conditions deteriorating.
Japan, the national operating entity, had to be protected at all costs. There's no independent companies in Japan, they all operate with Japan as a whole, the sole beneficiary of their efforts.
And if that means breaking signed contracts and agreements, so be it. Japan must come first.
The Japanese won. The contracts were not honoured and new iron-ore supply contracts more favorable to the Japanese were entered into.
Naturally, the trustworthiness of the Japanese fell markedly amongst all the Western companies representatives once the Japanese attitude was exposed.
The interesting part I find about Japan is how a nation that is the most indebted nation in the world can continue to operate as one of the worlds "economic powerhouses".
Any other nation would be on its knees from the effect of that debt, and trying to repay it - but the Japanese ignore that debt, seeing it as of no consequence. I would be very fearful if I was a Japanese debtor.
" ‘Take or pay’ clauses are particularly common within the energy, resources and infrastructure sectors, particularly in long term gas sales agreements, coal supply agreements, port and rail access arrangements and other off-take contracts. The significant financial commitment required for the exploration, production, shipping and distribution facilities often makes it necessary for the participating companies to seek ‘security’ as to the level of supply and demand throughout the duration of any supply or sale arrangements so as to guarantee the future returns on their significant financial commitment.
Take or pay clauses have therefore developed to the benefit of both purchasers and suppliers. The supplier is guaranteed a regular income stream, while the purchaser commits to pay for a minimum quantity to guarantee a regular but flexible supply. In the event that the purchaser is not able or willing to take the agreed minimum amount, it is required to pay for it."
A classic example would be the Japanese take-or-pay contract agreements made with West Australian iron ore producing companies in the late 1980's/early 1990's.
When the Japanese economy entered its severe downturn after the countrys asset-bubble collapse in the late 1990's, the Japanese steel mills sought to break their take-or-pay contracts with the iron-ore producers of Western Australia.
They essentially refused to honour their written contracts.
The iron ore companies were furious and pointed out the contract terms that had been signed by the Japanese. If they didn't take the agreed amount, they were obliged to pay the minimum.
"The precise T&C's are right there, in black and white!!", said the iron ore producers contract negotiators and enforcers.
"Ahhhhh, so!", said the Japanese steel mill representatives. "But we do not see these T&C's as black and white! We see these T&C's as many shades of grey!"
The iron ore company representatives were all stunned. What the Japanese effectively meant was that no contract or agreement they ever signed meant anything, if Japan (note - "Japan" - not "Japanese steel mills") potentially suffered losses caused by economic conditions deteriorating.
Japan, the national operating entity, had to be protected at all costs. There's no independent companies in Japan, they all operate with Japan as a whole, the sole beneficiary of their efforts.
And if that means breaking signed contracts and agreements, so be it. Japan must come first.
The Japanese won. The contracts were not honoured and new iron-ore supply contracts more favorable to the Japanese were entered into.
Naturally, the trustworthiness of the Japanese fell markedly amongst all the Western companies representatives once the Japanese attitude was exposed.
The interesting part I find about Japan is how a nation that is the most indebted nation in the world can continue to operate as one of the worlds "economic powerhouses".
Any other nation would be on its knees from the effect of that debt, and trying to repay it - but the Japanese ignore that debt, seeing it as of no consequence. I would be very fearful if I was a Japanese debtor.
" ‘Take or pay’ clauses are particularly common within the energy, resources and infrastructure sectors, particularly in long term gas sales agreements, coal supply agreements, port and rail access arrangements and other off-take contracts. The significant financial commitment required for the exploration, production, shipping and distribution facilities often makes it necessary for the participating companies to seek ‘security’ as to the level of supply and demand throughout the duration of any supply or sale arrangements so as to guarantee the future returns on their significant financial commitment.
Take or pay clauses have therefore developed to the benefit of both purchasers and suppliers. The supplier is guaranteed a regular income stream, while the purchaser commits to pay for a minimum quantity to guarantee a regular but flexible supply. In the event that the purchaser is not able or willing to take the agreed minimum amount, it is required to pay for it."
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is easy to ignore debt between members of the family:
Japan's Debt Trap - Bloomberg View
Japan’s government has a lot of debt. Not as much as people think -- since much of that debt is owed by one branch of the government to another, net debt held by the public is only 134 percent of gross domestic product, not the widely quoted figure of 240 percent. But 134 percent is still a lot. About 15.6 percent of Japanese tax revenue goes to pay interest on this debt every year -- about the same as for the U.S. This is a moderate burden on government finances, but one that would quickly become unsustainable if interest rates were to spike.
Any increase in Japan's defense budget needs to be seen in the context of North Korean threats, recent aggressive Russian aircraft encroachments, and Chinese military budgets, naval encroachments & claims to the islands south of Japan.
For years Japan took everything without uttering a squeak, but recently Abe's popularity proves that the populace were beginning to get fed up with the increasing and more blatant challenges to the staus quo.
For years Japan took everything without uttering a squeak, but recently Abe's popularity proves that the populace were beginning to get fed up with the increasing and more blatant challenges to the staus quo.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if Abe really wants to shake up the region all his has to do is exit the NPT and go nuclear. More than any other country on the planet, Japan has the technology and means to nuke it up in an eye blink.
Of course that is also against their constitution, but then so is having offensive weapons of any kind.
Japan?s Unveils ?Aircraft Carrier in Disguise? | The Diplomat
And BTW, history not exactly on the Japanese side if you are talking about who threatens whom...
I guess anything before 1945 doesn't count then.
Of course that is also against their constitution, but then so is having offensive weapons of any kind.
Japan?s Unveils ?Aircraft Carrier in Disguise? | The Diplomat
And BTW, history not exactly on the Japanese side if you are talking about who threatens whom...
For years Japan took everything without uttering a squeak
This 'increase' in defence expenditure creates the classic security dilemma - making other countries in the region feeling a bit uncomfortable - and they do have long memories of Japanese expansionism in the 1930s and 40s.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GK, If you are implying that the other regional powers should have forgotten Japan's imperial past that I suggest a quick International Relations primer might be in order. State's memories and policies go back hundreds of years...1945 is not even history in that region.
But aside from mere memories, analysts know that Japanese imperialism existed for a reason - and those reasons are as valid today as they were in the past - small country, over populated, cramped, lack of resources...all the usual stuff.
Japan is a country in trouble and without the US as a massive strategic partner, potentially in bigger trouble still.
So a country with a recent violent imperialist past, big internal problems and a consistently vast (and disguised) military spend is talking about increasing its already huge (in both absolute and relative terms) military budget, increasing the role of its armed forces (sorry, self defense forces) and changing it's constitution to allow a more "interventionist role and you think that shouldn't make China and North Korea nervous.
I'd suggest it scares the crap out of them.
But aside from mere memories, analysts know that Japanese imperialism existed for a reason - and those reasons are as valid today as they were in the past - small country, over populated, cramped, lack of resources...all the usual stuff.
Japan is a country in trouble and without the US as a massive strategic partner, potentially in bigger trouble still.
So a country with a recent violent imperialist past, big internal problems and a consistently vast (and disguised) military spend is talking about increasing its already huge (in both absolute and relative terms) military budget, increasing the role of its armed forces (sorry, self defense forces) and changing it's constitution to allow a more "interventionist role and you think that shouldn't make China and North Korea nervous.
I'd suggest it scares the crap out of them.
OF1 - exactly. I recall a RUSI paper a few years ago looking at nuclear proliferation and the concern was that Japan would be next. Strategically if could argue it needs them; it have the launch vehicles for IRBMs, it has the nuclear industry and the infrastructure. At the moment the UK processes its spent fuel, part of a cunning plan to deprive Japan of the key ingredient.
But the Japanese public are still a bit iffy about nukes. God knows why. It was 69 1/2 years ago...
But the Japanese public are still a bit iffy about nukes. God knows why. It was 69 1/2 years ago...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OF1. Japan going invade China? Really?
It's about a regional arms race and who is responsible - answer, everyone. Singling out the NK and China as the bad guys is just Western propaganda.
Although, arguing against Japan invading stuff is kinda ironic don't you think?
Moreover, nobody needs to invade anybody to dispute territory and resources
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11341139
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Japan
Age: 71
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err. The regional disputes are China vs Vietnam, China vs Philippines and China vs Japan. Also China insisting on control of airspace over the South China Sea.
I don't think Japan "scares the crap" out of anyone. I do think China uses its usefull idiots to push an agenda.
I don't think Japan "scares the crap" out of anyone. I do think China uses its usefull idiots to push an agenda.
