Declining defense spending
Some like to hype up fears of resurgent Japanese militarism, but the numbers don’t appear to support their claims. In fact, Japan’s defense spending has been dropping in recent years, so much so that the United States has grown concerned about its ally:
Over the last decade China has increased military expenditures by an average of 14.2 percent annually, and South Korea’s defense budget has grown 73 percent, said J. Thomas Schieffer, U.S. ambassador in Japan since 2005.
In contrast, Japan’s ratio of defense spending to gross domestic product has been declining, he said.
Japan’s Ministry of Defense expects a budget of $46 billion this fiscal year through March 2009, down 0.8 percent from the previous year _ a trend Schieffer called “troubling.”
“We believe that Japan should consider the benefits of increasing its own defense spending to make a greater, not lesser, contribution to its own security,” Schieffer said in a speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan.
Schieffer also urged Japan to buy new fighter jets that are “joint operational” with their American counterparts, so his concerns could have something to do with American companies that want new weapons contracts.
| Related Posts: |
|
The JSDF may run out of gas this year Japan’s Otaku Defense Minister |
Full RSS Feed
Problem is if they raised their military spending 1% South Korea and China would start screaming about Japanese militarism and imperialism. Which is ridiculous considering that the most militaristic nation in asia (bar NK) is definitely China.
If only at least South Korea could realise that the true fiends of Asia should be South Korea – Taiwan – Japan. Then maybe even the military of SK and JP could co-operate.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
No, this is where Japan says, “Thanks for all of your support over the years Bush, but we’ve seen what happens when you dump all your money into military spending and we’re not interested in screwing over our country.”
Rate this comment:
0 
0
When did Japan say that? Do you have a source?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
This is a sentence indicating a hypothetical situation and only my opinion. Another way to read the sentence is “This is where Japan should say…”
It doesn’t mean – This is where Japan said – which would have meant it actually happened.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Japan BETTER start upping its military. It’s surrounded on all sides by hated enemies who could turn at any moment. Kim Jung Il’s frickin insane, and China’s becoming a world power. The three aren’t exactly on good terms, and China has a bit more than a bone to pick with Japan (*cough**Nanking*). I’m genuinely afraid for Japan. To hell with their carefree attitude. As much as I love them, they’re being stupid….
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I’d be interested in hearing what you think increased military spending could possibly accomplish. China has the world’s second largest military with 2,555,000 troops and 800,000 reserve troops; Japan has 239,000. If full scale warfare broke out between Japan and China, the US would have to get involved and it would be the beginning of a third World War.
Do you honestly think that increased military spending is going to help with anything?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Yeah, no.
Commanding officers were found guilty at the Tokyo Trial and were executed, and the participants who are still alive are probably all in their 90s and beyond now.
Even so, you still think China is perfectly willing to go to go to war with Japan, the United States, and anybody else who gets sucked in over it??
Wow.
What next, is France gearing up to start throwing punches at Germany again? Hell I live an hour and a half away from a reservation, maybe I better look out in case the Winnebago and/or Omaha tribe decides they’re finally ready to get some revenge against the white man too. Yikes!
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The EU has pretty much eliminated the risk of another war in Europe. Outside the EU it is still a world of Power politics.
Of course a full scale war with China is extremely unlikely but a smaller tussle (e.g. over senkaku or the disputed gas fields) is not inconceivable. In fact considering the Taiwan situation even a bigger war can not be ruled out.
The right thing to do is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Japan’s defense budget is #6 in the world. 2008 numbers:
US – 583 Billion USD
France – 74 Billion USD
England – 68 Billion USD
China – 57 Billion USD
Germany – 45 Billion USD
Japan – 42 Billion USD
Russia – 40 Billion USD
South Korea – 28 Billion USD
China gets more bang for its buck on the low-tech end of the scale due to lower domestic prices, but they are still buying cheap junk. Just a lot of it. On the high-tech end, prices are pretty much the same wherever you go. China spends 4-5% of its GDP on defense, about the same level as the US, Japan under 1%. All that means is Japan has a much higher GDP.
China has no significant blue-water naval capability, no meaningful amphibious capability, and negligible ability to project air power far from its shores. So it effectively can’t move troops off its own soil, and couldn’t support any it did. Same for North Korea, even more so. Both have missiles, and that’s about it. Japan will soon have tankers and AWACs, which means they CAN project air power well outside of Japan if needed. Japan has both airlift and sealift capability, including amphibious capability.
But they have to spend more and buy “US compatible” equipment. Right.
No. Japan needs to pull a Switzerland, go neutral and have the means to enforce that neutrality and its borders.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I wonder why useless nations like Russia and qina are spending so much in military. It’s no like any nation in the world are threatening them or anything. If it is, it’s for a good cause.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
If Ambassador Schieffer is concerned about Japan having more “US compatible” equipment then he should talk to Congress about denying Japan the ability to buy F-22 Raptors (even F-22s stripped of highly secret avionics)
However, I suspect Japan will pursue the acquisition of the F-35 Lightning to replace the F-2 FSX that has had such a troubled history. The F-35 was intended for export and JSDF would likely be allowed to buy as many as the Diet allows.
Outside of that, the only real military investment I can see Japan making is in their Navy but that is only if the US and Japan can come to terms with a true defense partnership. A partnership that has Japan stepping up more as an equal like Britain is. This would also have to allow Japan to have a much larger say in strategic defense matters. However, for this to happen I think Japan and S.Korea are going to need to have some frank talk on their relations.
I would love to see Japan owning a carrier or two. That would definitely keep the Japan/US alliance very formidable in the next couple of decades.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
The current interpretation of Article 9 of the Constitution does not allow for Japan to own carriers.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“I would love to see Japan owning a carrier or two.” Japan already kind of does own carriers. The JMSDF operates amphibious assault ships that have a flight deck that helicopters can operate from. They are planning to get more, and bigger ones at that. While conventional fixed-wing aircraft cannot be operated from these ships, STOVL aircraft such as the Harrier and the F-35 could. Japan wanted the Harrier years ago, but due to the fact the sale would instantly give Japan a small Carrier Air Wing, the US said no.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
LB,
That’s a great point. Japan does have helicopter carriers, which somehow are not considered a projection of force in the same way that an aircraft carrier would be. Thus, helicopter carriers do not violate Article 9.
I don’t know the details surrounding Japan’s not getting the Harrier. Was it fully US opposition, or was there a domestic element that feared VTOL capability would violate article 9? Do you know of anything written on the subject? I’d like to read more into it.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
What I heard at the time (I used to maintain Harriers) was that Japan wanted it, some in the US (McDonnell-Douglas and the USMC) were for it as it would mean a larger production run which created jobs and generate money (McD-D side) while also pushing the per-unit cost down (USMC side). Most of the “antis” were other regional players, folks who didn’t want Japan to have that capability. Doubtless Luddites like Takako Doi and her slimy ilk were also against it domestically.
The “force projection” argument is a red herring as far as I am concerned. Japan is an island nation, with a lot of spread-out territory. Without either a fixed-wing carrier (which Japan won’t have soon) or in-flight refueling capability (which Japan will have, very soon) Japan is barely able to patrol some areas of its own airspace. Certain platforms lend themselves to the policy of force projection, but they do not determine the policy. Those same platforms also lend themselves to strictly defensive uses, however I concede that a CV is overkill for Japan’s needs in that regard. Getting the 767 tankers and AWACs is more than sufficient for what the SDF needs to be able to do.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Given that the Harrier is British, why does the US have any say in whether Japan can buy it or not?
Actually, doing some research, it seems that while originally British, there are now three makers producing Harriers, two of which are US. Very confusing. Still, Japan could buy from the UK, surely?
Rate this comment:
0 
0
A brief history of the Harrier:
Developed in England by Hawker-Siddeley, who later merged into BAe (British Aerospace), hence BAe Harrier. These were the first generation Harriers, sold to the Marines as the AV-8A. All made in England, with McDonnell-Douglas as the US contractor in charge of coordinating things in the US.
McD-D went on to develop the second-generation AV-8B. BAe was involved in the initial stages and had their own plan for a “big wing Harrier” that went nowhere. BAe then dropped out, only to rejoin the project once it was effectively finished. All AV-8Bs are manufactured in the US, British equivalents are assembled in the UK from British and American-produced parts. All other non-US 2nd gen Harriers are US made.
McD-D was bought by Boeing, but Boeing doesn’t “make” Harriers (the line is now shut down), they just stick their name on the front since the type is now their corporate property.
Japan was interested in the McD-D produced AV-8B, which meant that the US had say on whether the sale went through. Perhaps Japan could have bought British-standard Harriers, perhaps not. In any event, they never asked the British. With McD-D as the major subcontractor on those airframes as well, US approval may still have been needed.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“his concerns could have something to do with American companies that want new weapons contracts.”
That’s how I read it too.
Personally I think Japan should rebuild the Yamato and cruise around in it. Sort of like the Death Star.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
I like the idea. (^_-)
Rate this comment:
0 
0
“Personally I think Japan should rebuild the Yamato and cruise around in it.”
Only if they give it enough fuel for a round-trip this time.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Looks like they’re going to have to secure an oilfield or two to make that affordable. A CV could help in that cause…
Rate this comment:
0 
0
Good for Japan! These bloated military budgets are such an incredible waste. Diplomacy, trade, and other policies aimed at friendship between nations (student exchange, scientific and cultural partnerships …)are much more effective in keeping a nation truly safe.
I believe that the Chinese are much more interested in selling things to Japan than in invading it.
I also think that this ambassador’s comments are mainly motivated by the urge to sell weapons.
Rate this comment:
0 
0
just found a great quote relevant to the topic:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953.
Rate this comment:
0 
0