News Stories

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Italy, Turkey and Indonesia ahead of Japan? Thats one big load of hogwash.

Canada being gash, no surprise there especially with a joke of a Navy that we have.

You know, without much of "offensive" weapons, Japan isn't really in the position to be considered a military power.

[Cosmic Eagle]

True...but it doesn't mean it can't beat its enemies. You don't need to invade to destroy the opponent's task forces

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

True...but it doesn't mean it can't beat its enemies. You don't need to invade to destroy the opponent's task forces

You're probably not getting it: Japan doesn't have the offensive weapons to destroy a determined opponent's task forces. When just about all of its neighbors are capable of invading Honshu, you really think that Japan can be considered a traditional military power.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Depends how much China or ROK wants to commit. It's a question of whether it's worth it to do so or not. Else you might as well call 1973 Israel not a traditional military power.

Japan lacks the traditional cruise missiles and ground strike munitions that everyone's so fond of but you don't need those to secure that strip of water.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

You know, without much of "offensive" weapons, Japan isn't really in the position to be considered a military power.

As if Italy, Turkey and Indonesia have any offensive weapons.

About Japan, it would surely help them getting higher in the standings if they can burn that outdated Article 9. With the complexity of the political system in place since 1945, full remilitarization is impossible anyway.

[Zakoo]

I don't really know about Indonesia but your idea on Turkish army is wrong.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

As if Italy, Turkey and Indonesia have any offensive weapons.

Shows how you have no idea.

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

About Japan, it would surely help them getting higher in the standings if they can burn that outdated Article 9. With the complexity of the political system in place since 1945, full remilitarization is impossible anyway.

No, Japan should really keep Article 9.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Sumeragi

No, Japan should really keep Article 9.

Assuming the day comes when the US tires of this region...how is that going to help them any? Economic ties as a deterrent? Only if the regional leadership is sound

[Ithekro]

Some would rather Japan never have the ability to invade or attack any of its neighbors ever again.

That or the Koreans don't want a rival should they ever unify the penninsula, as in Sumeragi's case she thinks Korea would be aggressive militarily and an offensively armed Japan would be a rival.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Although Germany was once reduced to the same status as Japan, but was also ripped in half for over 40 years after 1945, I don't see why it would keep Japan from having bigger and better armed forces. To me, too many people in Japan are taking that bloody Article 9 too literally while Germans found a way to get around it a lot although there has to be a similar article in the post-war German constitution.

Even after reunification, the Germans know that economic ties as a deterrent are just not enough. Credit to them for making strides in reaching the number 7 spot and being a major player in NATO.

edit: Why would South Korea be allowed to get themselves at number 8, and not Japan considering all the crap thrown at them by China/North Korea/Russia altogether for a long time? Don't you think the French and the British (both threw quite loads of crap at Germany for a long time) thought it was a potential problem when they saw their own political power dwindling in Europe while Germany is on the rise on all fronts? Instead of seeing only the bad, partnerships were created despite centuries of intense rivalries.

[Zakoo]

I don't really know about the legal aspect of the thing and your article 9, but to improve your army, you need money and only countries with economical growth or countries that over years managed to balance their economy and finance the army can do it.

Countries in recession or stagflation can't really do it, Japan is no exception, whether you take off this article 9, the country simply won't have the means to highly develop the defense force.

And also, as you are certainly aware, we western countries are quite in a crappy situation, the politicians prefers to reduce the money on armament than increasing it. People in time of peace simply won't agree to have their money wasted on futility .. There are exceptions of course hur hur.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Zakoo

I don't really know about the legal aspect of the thing and your article 9, but to improve your army, you need money and only countries with economical growth or countries that over years managed to balance their economy and finance the army can do it.

Countries in recession or stagflation can't really do it, Japan is no exception, whether you take off this article 9, the country simply won't have the means to highly develop the defense force.

That's only a matter of time before economic changes will have an effect IMO and the defense budget has been tripled from what I read recently.

Speaking of finances, Italy has been stagnating for a while (grazie, Signor Berlusconi) and that makes even less sense for them to remain that high in the standings. Just saying...

edit:

Originally Posted by Zakoo

And also, as you are certainly aware, we western countries are quite in a crappy situation, the politicians prefers to reduce the money on armament than increasing it. People in time of peace simply won't agree to have their money wasted on futility .. There are exceptions of course hur hur.

Say that to China with virtually a blank check on defense expenditures at the same time they are looking for trouble with everyone around for land, including Japan.

[Ithekro]

Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...e_Constitution

ARTICLE 9. Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes. (2) To accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

[Zakoo]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

That's only a matter of time before economic changes will have an effect IMO and the defense budget has been tripled from what I read recently.

Speaking of finances, Italy has been stagnating for a while (grazie, Signor Berlusconi) and that makes even less sense for them to remain that high in the standings. Just saying...

The people of Italia choose to continue feeding their defense lobby at the cost of maybe seeing their country bark like a dog for others food in the few next years. If the people were stupid enough to do it willingly, that I do not know but they will take responsability to not have realized sooner that there are priorities between creating weapons and having a proper economy.

We are free to continue arguing on the economic, but that really isn't my field, I will back from this.

[Sumeragi]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Assuming the day comes when the US tires of this region...how is that going to help them any? Economic ties as a deterrent? Only if the regional leadership is sound

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Some would rather Japan never have the ability to invade or attack any of its neighbors ever again.

That or the Koreans don't want a rival should they ever unify the penninsula, as in Sumeragi's case she thinks Korea would be aggressive militarily and an offensively armed Japan would be a rival.

Well, there are two reasons for why I support Japan keeping Article 9:

1. Japan is having enough troubles without spending money on a military.
2. Korea needs Japan as much as Japan needs Korea. Even with reunification Korea will be needing a large military for quite a long time, and given how the ROKAF have always been able to get more out with less money, it's better that Japan lets the Koreans do most of the heavy lifting in exchange for economic focus.

[sneaker]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

Even after reunification, the Germans know that economic ties as a deterrent are just not enough. Credit to them for making strides in reaching the number 7 spot and being a major player in NATO.

The German army has been greatly reduced on a regular basis after the re-unification and this trend does not seem to have come to an end just yet. The Cold War West German army was much bigger than the current army of the unified Germany. The only thing that changed is that it has been used for combat missions abroad instead of only sitting at home waiting for the Russian to attack. If anything, Germany is descending in that list.
I also think you are mistaken if you believe Germany more freely interpreting their constitution to take part in global missions did them any good - they don't really have much to gain in Afghanistan, Africa or the Balkans. It only costs money, men and sympathy (making Germany a target for terror) and attracting of Asylum seekers though the connections on the foreign front. It would have been way easier to just continue letting the other western countries/U.S. deal with all this while playing the remorseful sinner that learned its lesson.
The only positive thing for Germany is the experience gain of the missions - a few small ability gaps have been closed in turn. (e.g. finally buying refuelers)

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

As if Italy, Turkey and Indonesia have any offensive weapons.

Turkey is a long-standing NATO member, and it has been governed off-and-on by the military since the time of Ataturk. Italy is, of course, a NATO member as well. Wikipedia has a table of the size of national armed forces based on 2010 estimates by the Institute for Strategic Studies. For Indonesia, they list about 300,000 regular army, another 280,000 "paramilitary" forces, and 400,000 reservists. That puts them at around 20th on the list, right behind Turkey.

[Ithekro]

Japan and South Korea have roughly similar navies in size. There abilities differ, mainly due to the Artcle 9 preventing the Japanese warships from shipping Tomahawk cruiser missiles (though they do carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles). The Japanese ships however carry superior anti-air and anti-ballistic missile systems.

The Japanese are also ahead in flattops, with multiple in service and under construction to Korea's one.

[mangamuscle]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Wikipedia has a table of the size of national armed forces based on 2010 estimates by the Institute for Strategic Studies.

DPRK Total per 1000 capita = 386.7 <-- Woah! Talk about ridiculous. we are talking about 1 in every 3 person are officially part of the war effort for a war that has been frozen for fifty years! O_o;

If NK drops a nuclear bomb that affects Japan directly or indirectly I bet my car that they will drop Article 9 faster than you can say "kamikaze" >_<

[Der Langrisser]

U.S. deploys warship as tensions over North Korea rise

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9310OL20130402

And the sillyness around Korea continues to escalate...*sigh*