I was inspired by this deal:

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/ap/20080520/tap-japan-us-4cec4ac.html

Quote :

"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 (U.S. Ambassador to Japan) called "troubling.""

This has been going on for a while, but seriously, it absolutely ticks me off. Hopefully you already know this, but we (the US) wrote Japan's constitution. Possibly the most problematic part of it is:

Quote :

"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) In order 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."

That's right, all of their forces are seriously in blatant violation of this - at our request. Even if that battleship is only there to fight Godzilla, their military is officially not allowed, yet we demand that they maintain it.

Iceland, for example, doesn't maintain a "standing army", but this is fucking 2008, even if you didn't have a single God damn gun in your entire country, no one is going to take you over. It just isn't going to happen. The VAST majority of forces that exist in the world are just for show or a relic of an older way of world politics. Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and some others do face a serious threat, but is the thing that keeps their enemies at bay their own military or assured international reaction?

Then the only countries that do experience cross-border incursions are the absolute bottom of the development pyramid. I think we need military forces somewhere in the world to respond to extreme cases. That, and maybe ability to respond to disasters and peace corps... might be nice.

Bitching and moaning about countries NOT increasing spending in a world where it's not needed in the first place is FUCKING RIDICULOUS.

5/21/2008 12:11:50 AM

good point, but sadly the world seldom makes sense, especially in any regards to peace.

maybe at one point in time in the future we'll outgrow the belief invasions are right around the corner in the modern world.

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 12:15 AM. Reason : elab]

5/21/2008 12:14:21 AM

childlike liberal naivety

5/21/2008 12:18:48 AM

^

$46 billion = Right-wing bullcrap

STOP TRYING TO DESTROY THE WORLD YOU NEO-CONS! WE NEED THAT MONEY TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING

5/21/2008 12:23:30 AM

I don't think the Japanese need much of an army, but they do have a justified need for a navy, even if its merely the "Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces". Japan is heavily dependent upon the shipping lanes across the Pacific and through the Straits of Malacca; if these were disrupted, whether by blockade from another nation, pirates, or other malicious forces, it would quickly cripple their nation. South Korea, China, and Taiwan are also in a similar situation.

Current Japanese military procurement also is driven by a real military threat from North Korea. Sure, the commies aren't going to swim and invade, they do have ballistic missiles and probably have some kind of weaponised chemical or biological agent. Japan wants the capability to both intercept incoming missiles and blow up North Korean missile sites if necessary. They're also wanting to develop better force projection in the event of a dispute with the Chinese in contentious areas like the South China Sea.

You also have a second issue that's driving current procurement. For better or worse, American hegemony over the region is fading, and while the old alliances are still in place, most of the nations are less and less sure about American commitments toward regional security and are buying the weapons and equipment for capabilities that they had previously relied upon the US for. South Korea is a good example of this.

You're also a bit overoptimistic on the stability of Eastern Asia. The region is like Europe circa 1920s; no one contemplates war openly but you don't have the sort of mutual trust and understanding that stabilizes modern Europe either. One of the largest factors that has maintained the balance of power, the United States, is rapidly losing its influence. While the Chinese have been playing nice recently, their recent modernization efforts are unnerving their neighbors. No one (with the exception of Taiwan) thinks that China is going to invade, but they don't want to be in a position where China has overwhelming military superiority that could threaten their sovereignty either. After all, whose going to stop the Chinese if they decide they're going to harass their neighbors?

5/21/2008 3:53:58 AM

I suppose that, over the years, I've become jaded. Used to be I actually rolled my eyes almost every time I got into the Soap Box. Now it happens once every few weeks, at most.

This is one of those times where someone says something so absurdly stupid that it actually produces a physical response in me.

Quote :

"Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and some others do face a serious threat, but is the thing that keeps their enemies at bay their own military or assured international reaction?"

What exactly do you think "assured international reaction" entails? Stern warnings? Impotent embargoes? U.N. kvetching?

I'll ignore, for the moment, the large number of countries that have either been invaded or threatened with invasion in the last couple of decades. I'll ignore the large number of countries that have faced civil wars during that time period. I'll even go so far as to ignore the fact that the last two times the United States thought that a decent standing military was unnecessary, we ended up having to come up with one anyway to help win fucking world wars.

The only thing restraining most countries from going to war at any given time is the threat of military response. A lot of that response, obviously, is from the country being invaded -- they tend to fight back. In other cases, though, a majority comes from other countries: allies, perhaps, or just one country with a vested interest in seeing another one restrained.

North Korea could easily, easily overrun South Korea's defenses. They're also pretty much already the subject of every conceivable diplomatic penalty available short of a declaration of war. But for fifty years they have refrained from invading South Korea. Why? Because even Kim Jong Il, the batfuck crazy retard in charge of the north, realizes that their initial victory would be met very soon with overwhelming destruction from the United States military. If certain persistent rumors are to be believed, that includes the nuclear obliteration of what little North Korea has.

North Korea doesn't refrain from aggression because of peaceful "international reaction." Iran doesn't refrain from war with Israel for that reason. Serbia doesn't start right back up invading everyone on their godforsaken peninsula for that reason. Venezuela and Ecuador didn't recently refrain from attacking Colombia for that reason.

All of those countries refrained because their action would result in direct conflict with the affected militaries and those of their allies.

They refrain because a range of armies might intervene.

They refrain because of the threat of violence.

Quote :

"Iceland, for example, doesn't maintain a "standing army""

Iceland has very few resources that aren't cod-based. Iceland also has the de facto protection of NATO and the United States. Iceland doesn't need a military because:

a) It can't afford one worth a damn
b) All of its neighbors are actually friendly
c) If anyone did invade, they'd face the wrath of the most powerful military bloc on the planet

India, for example, doesn't have these advantages. It has two neighbors with territorial claims on it (Pakistan and China). Both of these neighbors are nuclear powers with large armies. Both of these powers have gone to war with it in the last half century. It also faces a number of internal threats.

Colombia exists in a constant state of civil war with pseudo-political drug dealers, to say nothing of very tense relations with two of its neighbors (Venezuela and Ecuador), both of whom recently threatened war.

Cuba has long been subject to one of the most comprehensive embargoes in history. It has, within the past half-century, been invaded by forces with support from the most powerful military in the world (the United States). It has very few friends and is effectively surrounded by enemies with a demonstrated history of aggression.

I could go on and on, but I have the feeling it won't do me any fucking good at all.

---

To sum up:

Countries are no longer aggressive because the stakes are too high. Presently, the vast majority of countries can be invaded with no more than a month or two's notice. We got into Afghanistan, a landlocked country, in that period of time. Furthermore, the nuclear option allows for a larger degree of retaliation than was previously thought possible.

As a result, nations refrain from invading their neighbors solely because of the threat of retaliatory force greater than they can handle. If they do proceed with such measures, it is for one of the following reasons:

1) The national leadership believes that other actors lack the resolve to retaliate (Iraq in Gulf War I essentially thought this way)
2) The national leadership believes that other actors lack the ability to retaliate (arguably the US has operated erroneously under this assumption in several recent conflicts)
3) The national leadership is not operating under rational principles and thus will possibly act contrary to its national interests (arguably a description applicable to any number of countries, but in my opinion has yet to really occur and is unlikely to occur, as in any government there are multiple individuals who could upset such a course of action and who are unlikely to all be insane at the same time)

Quote :

"Bitching and moaning about countries NOT increasing spending in a world where it's not needed in the first place is FUCKING RIDICULOUS."

I agree with you in the SPECIFIC CASE OF JAPAN.

Japan does not presently face any threats requiring any military to speak of.

5/21/2008 5:29:25 AM

I'm so happy i was able to prompt as much as a physical reaction. Even though you didn't disagree with me.

However, while we may be in agreement that a country has a right to peace and tranquility even without spending x percent of their GDP on military, I differ on most of the evidence you presented. Let's look at Korea.

North Korea:
$5,500,000,000 spending estimate
1,210,000 active
7,745,000 reserve

South Korea:
$28,940,000,000 spending estimate
687,000 active
4,500,000 reserve

Quote :

"North Korea could easily, easily overrun South Korea's defenses."

Why oh why the horrendous exaggeration? As long as we're in the conversation limited to the North-South relationship, the domestic defenses could very effectively protect the country. In fact, the South would outright win if it came to war.

I, personally, support Iceland's position. I agree with what McArthur was thinking when he let article 9 get into Japan's constitution. I don't think he was batshit crazy when he did this, and I think it makes perfectly good sense, then and now.

by 'international reaction' I did mean military response. Considering that the US supplies much of the forces that keep the world from completely destabilizing, it's not surprising that we would value said protection highly, but the fact that it is overvalued does not change. The standing forces that are available in the event of the worst scenario crisis are orders of magnitude more numerous than what they need to be.

5/21/2008 7:32:11 AM

think of the positives you liberal scum:

1) all the best technology comes from military research
2) wars are a natural progression of humanity to rid itself of evil that would ultimately kill or enslave us anyhow


duh

5/21/2008 7:38:42 AM

It's possible, but very unlikely. Japan is an exception to the rule anyway.

5/21/2008 9:35:33 AM

Here's another blogger take, from someone who worked in Japanese politics:

http://www.observingjapan.com/2008/05/schieffer-bemoans-japans-defense.html

Basically, anyone who understands the situation there knows why spending is decreasing. They have huge pressure to eliminate government debt and at the same time are cornered between raising health care costs, problems with gas tax, and other things associated with a 'graying society'.

What the US says is, obviously, in the US's interest. But there is a significant opinion among us that Japan gets our defense for free. While there is a spectrum of opinions on this, I'm on the far side.

rubbish.

They never asked for us to protect them. They lost the way and that's why our bases are there. Those bases have huge NIMBY problems, and if Japan doesn't want them - screw it. Our politicians want Japan to help our missions all around the world in return for those bases that their citizens don't want. Fuck that. Don't give someone something without permission and complain that they didn't pay you back.

Japan is a strong positive factor in global stability. Their most hated opponents are in Asia, let them deal with that. Otherwise, their debt to society should be fulfilled by carbon credits, foreign aid, or what have you. Not parading worthless battleships around.

5/21/2008 10:01:40 AM

While nations should have a right to no military, they should be expected to invest in some level of military support for themselves (provided they have to means) to enjoy the benefits of protection of international alliances. UN and NATO countries don't want to have to step in and intervene b/c a country didn't invest in ANY defense. What level is reasonable is up for debate, but of course is primarily the perogative of that nation.

5/21/2008 10:16:05 AM

Quote :

"1) all the best technology comes from military research"

nearly every technology begs to differ

5/21/2008 10:46:22 AM

oh so the rockets from ww2 research never helped nasa?

nor the airplanes designed never helped fuel the aviation industry?

nor the 100's if not 1000's of countless companies in the US that are funded by DOD research?

hmmm. every technology begs to differ eh?

5/21/2008 10:52:42 AM

Quote :

"Israel, South Korea, Taiwan, and some others do face a serious threat"

I find it comical that you named Israel and not any Arab state.

5/21/2008 11:05:08 AM

^ also notice I didn't include N. Korea. Perhaps a pattern?

5/21/2008 11:38:39 AM

i like how people complain about building a military, but then when the us is involved in conflict we complain about them not sending enough military


japan accelerating military spending is a tremendous boost to the us's ability to project power

i'm all for peace, but christ it's ridiculous not to have a military in this day and age

5/21/2008 11:59:31 AM

Quote :

"oh so the rockets from ww2 research never helped nasa? nor the airplanes designed never helped fuel the aviation industry? nor the 100's if not 1000's of countless companies in the US that are funded by DOD research? hmmm. every technology begs to differ eh?"

"all the best technology comes from military research"

i never said that military research didn't improve technologies, but it's a fairly limited set of technologies that the military spends money on.

sure they helped along rockets. but nasa did a whole lot of work on their own (as well as plenty of other scientists and engineers working independent of either of these entities)

sure the military advanced (and advances) aircraft technology, but so do airline companies and again NASA for completely non-defense related goals.

and one of the main reasons why the military has had the influence that it has on technology in this country has been simply because we've much of our science budget into military research. do you think that similar progress would not be made if we decided to put that research money into different places?


so in summation: the military may have helped along aerospace, communication, emergency medicine and some computer technology (and certainly plenty of other more military-specific technologies) in the past century, it had very little to do with many other technologies. the military didn't map the human genome and it won't discover the next biofuel.

military research often excels at taking discoveries made elsewhere and applying them to our nation's defense. to claim that a significant portion of our "best" technology "comes from" military research is absurd. unless of course you define "best" as missiles, planes and spy satellites.

5/21/2008 12:13:18 PM

^i'd have to disagree with a lot of what you said

velcro
computers
internet
gps
run-flat tires
carbon fiber
kevlar
non-perishable foods

i'll list more when i can get google to work for me

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_funding_of_science

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 12:25 PM. Reason : jank]

5/21/2008 12:23:36 PM

I'm pretty sure that the JSDF doesn't contribute much to advances in technology. Well, they do a little, as they have these crazy jets flying all over with radar looking for missiles. I don't think they'll ever develop anything that's going to help anyone.

Quote :

"japan accelerating military spending is a tremendous boost to the us's ability to project power"

Not keep the world safe, project power. Yes.

No mistake, it's good for us. But we're getting downright pushy. We're even making them pay for the new realignment of US bases. We also pressured them into the Indian Ocean refueling missions, which was a complete disaster for the ruling party there.

The people there have woken up. They know a yen paid to defense isn't increasing their security like it should be, and it's probably just going to advance someone else's agenda. Most people here don't understand that Japan could be an election away from vastly downsizing their military cooperation with us.

This is coming from a former WWII aggressor, I suggest we not take these signs lightly. It's the responsibility of our government to stop aggressors from threatening our freedom.

It's our responsibility to stop our own government from doing the same thing.

5/21/2008 12:40:54 PM

Quote :

"No mistake, it's good for us. But we're getting downright pushy. We're even making them pay for the new realignment of US bases."

well understand that part of brac (base realignment and closure) is moving our installations from japan to hawaii and guam. but the main reason for this is that japan wants us out so they can develop the land, considering how valuable it is. so i think japan is willing to pay for the brac, considering it's sort of like an investment in that they'll get much more return on the land in the future than from us leasing

5/21/2008 12:44:39 PM

Quote :

"^i'd have to disagree with a lot of what you said velcro computers internet gps run-flat tires carbon fiber kevlar non-perishable foods"

ok. then do that.

first off, velcro wasn't invented by the military nor was its first big foray in the military field (it was for NASA)

it seems run-flat tires weren't developed by the military either (if wikipedia is to be trusted)

looking further, nor was carbon fiber (though in this case the air force and NASA were early adopters of the technology)

kevlar was developed by dupont (obviously with motivation from military applications)

as far as the internet is concerned, the military had a part in its initial infrastructure but most of what makes the internet tick these days has nothing to do with the military

5/21/2008 1:16:13 PM

Now that I've read through the article, some new things leap to mind:

1) Basically we're talking about one U.S. representative saying something at a dinner. I'm not sure it qualifies as "bitching and moaning," let alone an affront to the rights of nations.
2) Japan has treaty obligations to us that I think give us the right to express disappointment on this matter.

Quote :

"As long as we're in the conversation limited to the North-South relationship, the domestic defenses could very effectively protect the country. In fact, the South would outright win if it came to war."

There may be evidence to support this assertion somewhere. I've just never encountered it.

I have, however, encountered courses such as "U.S. National Security." I've encountered at least a dozen officers and enlisted men who have served for various lengths of time in South Korea. I've encountered statistics like the ones you just provided, showing that the North Korean military is a little under twice the size of the South Korean one.

And all of those things I've encountered are in agreement that North Korea would overrun the lines, including our own sizable military contingent there.

Quote :

"I agree with what McArthur was thinking when he let article 9 get into Japan's constitution."

You agree that Japan is a formerly aggressive country that had demonstrated that it could not be trusted to behave well when it had guns?

Quote :

"by 'international reaction' I did mean military response."

OK, so walk me through this. They don't have to contribute one red cent to defense, because there is bound to be an international military response to any threat facing them. Said response being paid for, of course, not by the people they'd be defending, but by people who are peacefully at home BECAUSE THEIR COUNTRY HAD THE SENSE TO HAVE A FUCKING MILITARY.

In other words, open your wallets, America, you've got to pay for the world police.

5/21/2008 1:22:12 PM

sarijoul, the following companies and all their employees and products beg to differ from your 'opinions':

Accenture Ltd.
Aerojet
Aerospace Center Support
Aerospace Corporation
Alliant Techsystems
Allied Container Systems
Allied-Signal Inc.
AM General Corporation
American Petroleum Institute
Anteon International Corporation
Applied Research Associates Inc.
ARINC
Argon ST
AV-Optimal Defense Consultancy Service
BAE Systems plc (U.S. subsidiary is BAE Systems Inc.)
Ball Corporation
Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp.
Bath Iron Works
Battelle Memorial Institute
BBN Technologies
Bechtel Corporation
BDM Corporation
Blazeware Inc.
Boecore
Boeing Company
Boeing Sikorsky Comanche Team
Boeing SVS
Booz Allen Hamilton
British Nuclear Fuels Limited
CACI International Inc.
Carlyle Group
Carnegie Mellon University
Charles Stark Draper Laboratory
CNA Corporation
Concurrent Technologies Corporation
CSA Engineering
Computer Sciences Corporation
Decibel Research Inc.
Defense Technologies Inc.
DHB Industries
Digital System Resources Inc.
DRS Technologies
DynCorp
Earth Class Mail
Edison Welding Institute
EDO Corporation
Elbit Systems of America (the United States division of Israeli-based Elbit, operating through subsidiaries IEI, Kollsman, and EFW)
Electronic Data Systems Corporation
Electric Boat (division of General Dynamics)
ENSCO, Inc.
Environmental Tectonics Corporation
Evergreen International Aviation
Exxon Corporation
F M C Technologies
Foster Wheeler Ltd.
Foundation Health Systems Inc.
Gemini Industries Inc.
General Atomic Technologies Company
General Dynamics
General Electric's Military Jet Engines Division
Geo-Centers Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
GTE
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Harris Corporation
Health Net, Inc.
Hewlett-Packard
Honeywell
Hughes Electronics Corporation
Humana Inc.
IBM
Infotech Aerospace Services (a Pratt & Whitney joint venture)
Institute for Defense Analyses
Intelsat
International Resources Group
ITT Corporation Inc.
ITT Research Institute
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.
JGB Enterprises, Inc.
Johns Hopkins University
JPS Communications (wholly owned subsidiary of Raytheon)
Kaman Aircraft
Kearfott Guidance & Navigation Corporation
Kellogg, Brown and Root
Kongsberg Protech
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc.
Brashear
Lockheed Martin
Longbow Limited Liability Inc.
M7 Aerospace
MacGregor Group (part of Cargotec corporation) [1]
Maersk Line and Patriot Contract Services
Marconi Corporation PLC
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Maytag Aircraft Corporation
McDonnell Douglas Corporation (wholly owned subsidiary of Boeing)
MITRE Corporation; also see ANSER Institute for Homeland Security
Mitretek Systems Inc.; see MITRE Corporation and ANSER Institute for Homeland Security
Mitsubishi
Motorola Inc.
NASSCO Holdings Inc.
Nextel
Nichols Research Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems
Northrop Grumman Information Technologies
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
Northrop Grumman Mission Systems
Northrop Grumman Newport News (formerly Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Company)
Northrop Grumman Ships Systems
Northrop Grumman Space Technology
Northrop Grumman Technical Services
Ocean Shipholdings Inc.
Olin Corporation; also see John M. Olin and John M. Olin Foundation
Orbital Sciences Corporation
Pennsylvania State University
Pratt & Whitney (division of United Technologies)
Private Military Corporations
Private Federal Corporations
Quantum3D
Raytheon
Rockwell Collins
RONCO (de-mining operations Horn of Africa)
Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC)
Shell Oil Company
Siemens AG
Sikorsky Aircraft Company
SGIS
SPARTA, Inc.
Spectrum Astro
SRI International
Stanley, Inc.
Standard Missile Company LLC
Stevedoring Services of America
Stewart and Stevenson
Sverdrup Corporation
SYColeman (subsidiary of L-3 Communications)
Talla-Tech
TCom
Textron Inc.
Bell Helicopter Textron
Tri-Star Engineering, Inc.[2]
Tyco International Ltd.
University of Texas System
Unisys Corporation
United Industrial Corporation
United Technologies
URS Corporation
USmax Corporation
Verdian Corporation
Verizon Communications
Vinnell Corporation
Vinnell Brown and Root
Washington Group International
Westinghouse Electric Corporation
Worldcorp Inc.
Wyvern Technologies, Aerospace & Defense Contractors


the fact is sarijoul, if you have a job in any technology field in this country(that includes engineering/manufacturing/IT/ etc etc..) there's a pretty good chance you can map it back to some kind of defense research or defense funding without looking too hard.

and all the products and services that come from those companies are there in part because of the money they get from that defense research.

you can stop reading facts now and continue to drink the kool aid.

5/21/2008 1:35:52 PM

i don't know what you're trying to prove. i've said that plenty of great technology has come from the military. but by and large the military is good at taking existing technology and improving or adapting it for their uses.

i could list thousands of research organizations that have nothing to do with the military. it wouldn't prove anything.

and just taking a quick perusal through YOUR list. i think much of johns hopkins university and the university of texas system would beg to differ that all their employees are taking part in military research. so would nextel, mitsubishi or verizon for that matter.

i mean you could list every university that has ever gotten military funding. hell you could put my name up there because i've been sponsored by an air force research grant before. but that doesn't mean that all my research has been for the military. plenty of it has been for nasa and other organizations that are in no way military-related. and i'm in the aerospace field, easily the most dominated by military research (hell i'm guessing a large portion of the companies you list are there for aerospace-related industries)

and just because the military employs a large number of researchers does not mean that the majority (or "all" as you put it) of technology comes from the military.

might you be able to find some sort of six degrees of separation between most technologies and a military application or funding, perhaps. that doesn't mean that those technologies exist because of the military in any way.

5/21/2008 1:54:18 PM

Quote :

"1) Basically we're talking about one U.S. representative saying something at a dinner. I'm not sure it qualifies as "bitching and moaning," let alone an affront to the rights of nations."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Ambassador_to_Japan

There's only one of these. You can back off the significance of this uttering to some extent, but the point is that it is a clear position of our ambassador. If you asked him again I'm sure he'd say the same thing.

Quote :

"And all of those things I've encountered are in agreement that North Korea would overrun the lines, including our own sizable military contingent there."

I was noticing some phrasing hinting towards this before, and yes, that sounds perfectly reasonable. I'm sure N. Korea has enough forces to overrun defenses at the DMZ. They could get in there if they wanted to. And then face certain destruction.

Quote :

"OK, so walk me through this. They don't have to contribute one red cent to defense, because there is bound to be an international military response to any threat facing them. Said response being paid for, of course, not by the people they'd be defending, but by people who are peacefully at home BECAUSE THEIR COUNTRY HAD THE SENSE TO HAVE A FUCKING MILITARY."

You agree that

Japan does not presently face any threats requiring any military to speak of.

And at the same time you think 1% of GDP military spending is anything close to reasonable? Tack on US forces and this essentially says it takes 2-3% at a bare minimum to keep a country safe that faces no threats at all? huh? The JSDF doesn't have reserve forces! What are they preparing for? NOTHING!

Using force as a political tool is not a sustainable action. It is warranted in some cases, but the overall action should be to build a peaceful world. I don't think that's what the conservative approach to military does. Otherwise, there's plenty of history for us to repeat.

I'm sure most people are convinced that war will be a part of human society until the end of time, but I'll gladly differ on that point. When the populous is educated, they simply will not let that happen.

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 2:00 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2008 1:59:08 PM

mitsubishi, not a part of defense eh?

oh, they only started b/c they developed airplanes and airplane engines. but people like you don't learn those things. they continue assuming.

5/21/2008 2:00:48 PM

did i say they were NOT part of defense? no. you state that "all the employees" of that list of companies would beg to differ. i would guess that making a crotch rocket bike doesn't have any military funding.

or are you just listing companies that started based on military funding?

why the university of texas system then?

edit:
ahahah. mitsubishi started as a shipping firm in the late 19th century and then got into coal mining a little while later. way to drink the kool-aid or whatever.

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2008 2:02:41 PM

Quote :

"There's only one of these. You can back off the significance of this uttering to some extent, but the point is that it is a clear position of our ambassador. If you asked him again I'm sure he'd say the same thing. "

Right. Still not a big deal. It doesn't matter if every single official in the U.S. government feels this way, there's absolutely no indication that we'd ever do anything about it. You're bitching and moaning about a guy bitching and moaning.

Quote :

"They could get in there if they wanted to. And then face certain destruction."

They would face certain destruction at the hands of the U.S. and other militaries. South Korea's forces continue to seem largely inadequate.

Quote :

"You agree that Japan does not presently face any threats requiring any military to speak of."

Yes, but part of the reason for that is our own military. Without that protection, the situation might be very different. It's sunny outside at the moment, but I still own an umbrella.

5/21/2008 2:20:04 PM

Quote :

"North Korea could easily, easily overrun South Korea's defenses."

I'm going to disagree with this statement even though I agree with most of your post. The statement was true until the mid-1990s, but now, South Korea actually has an upper hand over the North right now in terms of military capability. True, they're outnumbered two to one, but the South has more than enough of a qualitative edge to beat the North, but most of the peninsula would probably be burnt to the ground by the end of it. That's why the US-ROK Alliance is still in place, to ensure that any invasion would be overwhelmingly crushed, making a 25%-35% chance of victory virtually zero so the North doesn't even consider it.

Quote :

"by 'international reaction' I did mean military response."

I agree somewhat, but again, I think that the "international reaction," if it ever truly existed, is rapidly decaying. Again, the United States, which plays a large part in current East Asian regional security, is losing its influence from a combination of neglect, poor decision making, and the rapid growth of regional players. This isn't just with the Bush administration either, this is a process that's been going on for a few decades now, accelerating in the late 1990s.

Quote :

"Japan does not presently face any threats requiring any military to speak of."

I strongly disagree with that. As I mentioned before, Japan has several very real threats that require substantial military assets. The Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces need to be able to project force to ensure Japanese shipping and supply lines in both the Pacific and Indian Oceans. North Korea continues to pose a serious threat with its ballistic missiles, and the Japanese are building up the capability to strike the Korean peninsula if they think the North is about to fire on them. The North also has regular incursions into Japanese territorial waters with submarines and small votes requiring at very least a heavily armed coast guard. Unfortunately, naval and air assets, particularly those used for force projection, are the most expensive part of defense procurement. They would need long range strike aircraft, long range escorts, tankers, AWACS, AEGIS cruisers, cruise missiles, patriot batteries, advanced radar, and the massive logistics trail to meet just these two threats alone. Factor in a rapidly modernizing Chinese and Korean militaries, and Japan has a lot to prepare for.

Quote :

"Using force as a political tool is not a sustainable action. It is warranted in some cases, but the overall action should be to build a peaceful world. I'm sure most people are convinced that war will be a part of human society until the end of time, but I'll gladly differ on that point. When the populous is educated, they simply will not let that happen."

Agreed in theory, but I don't think Northeast Asia is ready to lay down their arms yet. There's too much up in the air right now. Nationalism is on the rise for all these nations, and all it would take is the right territorial trigger or national insult to start another war. No one is sure about what Chinese ambitions are, what will happen with North Korea, or how the numerous territorial disputes will be resolved.

We thought that we were an enlightened civilization back at the turn of the last century, with rapid globalization and a growing free flow of information. That ended with World War One. When we thought we had learned our lessons from that war and began very aggressive arms controls and even banning offensive war in the 1920s. It doesn't matter how educated your population is, all you need is just a little bit of uncertainty and a few inflamed passions to bring about conflict.

You could point out Europe as your example, but remember it took the deaths of tens of millions, the razing of dozens of cities, and the everpresent fear of the massive Red Army to get them to set aside their differences. You don't have the trust, cooperation, or common enemy to bring people together.

5/21/2008 3:08:07 PM

And if you ever doubt the power of nationalism in East Asia, think about a simple territorial dispute over an uninhabitable rock in the Sea of Japan back in 2005. The issue completely scuttled the so-called "Japan Korea Friendship Year of 2005", had Korean F-16's chasing Japanese civilian aircraft, and children drawing lovely pictures such as this (displayed at a local subway station).






The following year, the Koreans launched a twenty ship flotilla to defend the island from "offensive provocations" by the Japanese who were sending a government ship to map the area. Later that year, the ROK Navy named their new flagship, an amphibious assault vessel and helicopter carrier, after it: the ROKS Dokdo.



Note the logo with the Korean flag superimposed over China.

Now think about the Chinese and their overreactions to the Olympic torch. Or the rash of government approved anti-Japanese riots in 2005. The fuel is there. All you need is the excuse.

5/21/2008 3:25:41 PM

yeah and that shipping was big time money bags!!

the real products and technology later came b/c of defense funding for wars. drink it up fool.

5/21/2008 3:25:55 PM

back pedal much?

5/21/2008 3:28:29 PM

you're an Aerospace Engineering major? let me know when you get your future job if you ever graduate.

b/c i'd like to know what company you work for and if it doesn't receive a majority of it's funding b/c of research for weapons and the military.

of course personally i hope it won't be funded by my tax dollars, i wouldn't want them going to waste with logic like yours

5/21/2008 3:34:58 PM

i really don't understand what you're trying to prove anymore. i don't think that "most of technology" is aerospace related. i would certainly say that most of aerospace related research in this country is tied to defense. this doesn't conflict with anything i said before. but there is far more to research and new technology that military research.

Quote :

"let me know when you get your future job if you ever graduate."

haha. nice try. i've already got two degrees.

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 3:44 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2008 3:43:19 PM

Are we talking about technological breakthroughs throughout history or just straight research and technology by definition?

5/21/2008 3:47:39 PM

Quote :

"of course personally i hope it won't be funded by my tax dollars, i wouldn't want them going to waste with logic like yours"

sorry to say they already are. just not through the miltary. i'm getting paid by nasa right now.

5/21/2008 3:50:30 PM

Let's say Japan got rid of their military.

Then let's say that someone invaded, or even threatened, Japan (If you say it couldn't happen you are officially retarded).

Who do you think will be defending Japan's interests?

The U.S. and the U.N.

Why should we pay more than anyone else to maintain a top military, then use it to protect nations too cheap to protect themselves?

I think if a nation refuses to maintain a military, it should be removed from all military alliances.

5/21/2008 3:56:04 PM

I think if a nation refuses to maintain a military, it should be removed from all military alliances forced to pay tribute to the UN and/or US for services rendered.

5/21/2008 3:59:52 PM

back to the original point: take away our military and it's funding to research, i highly doubt an org such as nasa or lockheed/boeing/and other companies in your field would be where they are today.

countries having wars won't create the breakthroughs, but they create THE NEED for them. now we have the best stealth technology, best rockets, best radars, best ships, best airplanes etc in the world. i attribute it to having a military, and yes, i don't believe we would have the best right now if it weren't for the military.

just look at all the remote controlled vehicles and cool stuff like UAVs. one day these military applications are going to be used at home for civilian purposes like transportation and communications instead of a war.

5/21/2008 4:05:15 PM

Quote :

"I think if a nation refuses to maintain a military, it should be forced to pay tribute to the UN and/or US for services rendered."

Allied nations, including Japan, do help pay for the maintenance of American forces in their respective nations.

5/21/2008 4:24:21 PM

well, your original point was that no great technology would exist without military innovation. and i called that statement bullshit.

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2008 4:25:01 PM

nah i'm pretty sure it spawns off the best technology and continues to do so.
and it sounds like a liberal who can't stand military funding is getting his rocks off again.

lol



[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

5/21/2008 4:37:27 PM

lol edits

5/21/2008 4:38:59 PM

^^i really don't understand where you're getting this stuff from. i'm merely saying that technology has come from far more places (and had far more motivations) than simply the military and military conflicts.

5/21/2008 4:40:46 PM

Quote :

"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."

someone should replace "Japanese" with "USA" and shove it down bush's throat.

5/21/2008 4:46:04 PM

no, the point of the thread is shitting on japan b/c of their military and the fact that if they don't have one or have less, will hurt them. which i'm calling bullshit.

having a defense system never hurt a country.

5/21/2008 4:46:58 PM

Quote :

"having a defense system never hurt a country."

you really like to deal in absolutes.

what about north korea? or the ussr?

i mean sure those countries focus(ed) far too much of their budget on the military. but those militaries certainly aren't/weren't positive forces in their respective countries.

5/21/2008 5:03:35 PM

i must be a sith lord. lol

5/21/2008 5:06:40 PM

Quote :

"You're bitching and moaning about a guy bitching and moaning."

Yes. Have you ever watched cable news by the way?

Quote :

"True, they're outnumbered two to one, but the South has more than enough of a qualitative edge to beat the North, but most of the peninsula would probably be burnt to the ground by the end of it."

They're not even that outnumbered!
NK: 1.2+7.7 = 8.9
SK: .6+4.5 = 5.4

If you include both active and reserve. And you know what direction it goes in when including the net population. One way or the other, about the only significant advantage N. Koreans would have on their side are their good looks
and maybe a poor nuclear weapon

Quote :

"The North also has regular incursions into Japanese territorial waters with submarines and small votes requiring at very least a heavily armed coast guard."

In the 70s NK landed on the west coast of Japan and kidnapped high school girls. I'm not even kidding. I don't think it's gotten much worse than that.


RedGuard played the Lioncourt Rocks card...

*sigh*

These are two nations are world leaders in all kinds of technology. Theaters in both countries show huge numbers of movies from the other. They hosted the 2002 world cup together, and LITERALLY share pop stars. There is a huge amount of mobility between the two countries, really unprecedented in the region up until this point. There are about 700,000 ethnic Koreans living in Japan (even if the government would like to ignore the fact). They both suffer the same falling birthrate problem and are now in astoundingly similar economic situations. A few years ago Japan went through a "Korean Boom", a huge influx of Korean cultural products. I know a Korean who learned Japanese from watching dramas. If it were not for all this, I don't think that schoolchildren shitting on the Japanese flag would be as fulfilling to them, lol.


I heard someone call a black person nigger the other day. Maybe we need to worry about a race war here?


History's a bitch. Hey, here are two things that have worked once or twice
1) education
2) democracy

[Edited on May 21, 2008 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

5/21/2008 7:33:22 PM

by the way...what if they didnt actually decrease spending? what if they spent the same but the value of the dollar is lower

5/21/2008 7:35:22 PM