Continued "pacifist" stance?

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050804/...n_hiroshima_dc


I think the Japanese owe it to themselves to continue on the path they have for the last 60 years. Their success as a country in the post-WWII decades is a powerful testament to the the fact that a society doesn't need to flex military muscle around the world to secure prosperity -- not to mention the fact that it took the Hiroshima and Nagasaki tragedies to loosen the military's iron grip on the nation (showing just how far wrong things can go with a military state.) It's a powerful lesson to the rest of the world: keep your armed forces on a tight leash, as it isn't too difficult for an entity possessed of so many resources to go horrible awry.

We all look back on WWII (and later the Cold War) for the lessons we've (hopefully) learned, and while I feel WMD's the world around (yes, including the U.S.) should be utterly obliterated, the best I can hope for right now is that those lessons are heeded until the day comes when world leaders realize a measurement of their worth is not found in how many missiles they can brandish.

[YogsVR4]

Japan (like Canada) has not needed to spend money on their defense because of their relationship with the US. Don't think for a minute the Soviet Union didn't have plans for a piece of Japan like they did for Germany.

[fredjacksonsan]

Japan has what all nations IMO should have - a small defensive military.

[tenguzero]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Japan (like Canada) has not needed to spend money on their defense because of their relationship with the US. Don't think for a minute the Soviet Union didn't have plans for a piece of Japan like they did for Germany.

Ah! I hear that one alot. Of course the Soviet Union probably had plans for Japan... after all, so didn't we. We just got to 'em first. And even if the Soviets HAD managed to take control of Japan... would that have made much of a difference in the short term? I mean, the Cold War happened nonetheless, and our rampant fear of the Communist boogeyman pressed us to continue the engagement right alongside them for 4 decades. And what made our motives/restructuring of Japan any "better" than what the Soviet Union might have done? Seriously... we knew Hirohito was right in on everything that took place during the war, but we turned around and fed the whole "He was just an ill-informed figurehead" to the public at large. Then we followed it up by KEEPING the guy in power, effectively crippling Japan's first chance to try and put their atrocities behind them. How can you move on, when the old framework was still there, this time being controlled from Washington? Let's face it -- the U.S. wanted Japan for its location (why else do we STILL keep fully staffed military bases there 60 years later?) As well as for an ally in any ventures we might pursue (circumstances considered, what would they do, say No?)

As far as not needing to expend the money on anything besides defensive capabilites (besides the fact that the standing postwar agreement forbids them from doing it -- they've been able to send minor military aid for us in with Iraq because we aren't about to call them on it) why should these nations bother spending the money, when the U.S. seems more than willing to do the job for them! (Of course, the "World Police" thing is another issue entirely.)

[Flatrater]

I think it's far fetched linking the lack of miltary buildup and prosperity.


Japan is limited to the size of it's miltary. If japan was allowed to increase the size of their miltary they would. Japan's prosperity is tied to the fact that after WW2 Japan was rebuilt using then modern equipment whereas in the US the equipment was outdated. So japan could make it cheaper and faster.

If you take a look at most of eastern Europe they also lack a large miltary yet they don't see the same prosperity as you claim a non-miltary country should have.

If you do some looking around you will find that Mexico is gaining on Japan especially in the auto business. General Motors is building a slew of cars and trucks in Mexico as well as replacement parts. Now why is that? It's because the labor costs are cheaper than building it in the US or elsewhere due to NAFTA. Japan can't compete with Mexico on labor costs. And you don't hear about Mexicans killing themselves because of their jobs or working 50 to 60 hours a week.

Sorry but you tieing the miltary to prosperity lacks and foundation.

[tenguzero]

And how does linking low costs of labor in Mexico with a discussion about the state of Japan's military have any foundation? If you want to take that approach, I can just as easily say: and Japanese car manufacturers are opening up more plants in America because it saves them the costs of importing. I mean, I'm just going to play Devil's Advocate here, but it seems to me that the two entities making money in the car business are Japan and Mexico -- NOT the U.S. I suppose if I were to link it to the military issue (and this is obviously stretching it) I'd note that neither Mexico nor Japan have very large militaries (and coincidentally are making money.) So this brings me back to my initial point: why bother taking on all the costly overhead, when someone else (the U.S. in this instance) will do it for you. Hence, it's more prosperous NOT to have a larger military, as a larger military means a larger presence, and a larger presence means more overhead when dealing with both domestic and global affairs. I'm not bashing my country for this (the parallel growth of military and overhead is practically a given) but I AM still stating my original claim: the less of a military Japan has, the greater their potential for prosperity. Could the fact that Japan possesses a newer urban infrastructure than the U.S. have a bearing on the matter at hand? Of course. But then, there's nothing holding us back from modernizing our own infrastructure either -- if we so desired to. It just so happens though, that our military cost is far greater than that of Japan -- which means less money for the building of newer infrastructure (at least, newer infrastructure that ISN'T military based...)

Therefore, military expenditure is, at least for developed countries, seemingly VERY closely linked with economic prosperity. Let's face it: when's the last time a 15 million dollar tank or jet HELPED our economy more than it cost?

[lazysmurff]

building a big military does help the economy. the government doesnt build the war machines itself, it contracts the work out to private companies like lockhead martin et.al. thereby pumping enormous amounts of money into the private secter which makes our economy look good, because well, when rich people get richer....the economy always looks good.

*now, you do have a point....if we poured that same money...say...into healthcare, or food production, or technological advances, or alternate fuels, we might find that overall quality of life improves, and we might look a little more prosperous.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

Therefore, military expenditure is, at least for developed countries, seemingly VERY closely linked with economic prosperity. Let's face it: when's the last time a 15 million dollar tank or jet HELPED our economy more than it cost?

In sense I do agree with you but, there is a lot more to it than that. One main purpose for a state to have an armed force is to protect their assets. To prevent any possible threats that could endanger all of their work that they spent billions upon billions of dollars to bring about.

Now I can make an analogy along the lines of say... the home you live in. Most people have locks on their doors to keep all their pretty little assets secure. Some people install security systems. Now you could have otherwise used the money you spent on the security system, locks, etc. and bought a nice big tv, stereo, cpu, etc. But the main question is how willing are you to protect what you value? A little? A lot?

If your a country like Japan, with a LOT of money, you betcha you want the security in knowing that you have protection against any possible threats. You have the Korean fiasco, China and Taiwain (sp?), and also the property of the South China sea. If the US wasn't there to provide a a security blanket with their presence in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwain, then you can bet your shinny nickels that they could have all been in quite a pickel with the possiblities by the names of North Korea, China, and Russia. It would be absolutely imparitive for a means of defense for these countries to keep things straight. The US is there to protect their own assets, and they use their military might to do so. Within this is where I disagree with you. A nation needs a safeguard for their well being. It is essential for their prosparity.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by Kurtdg19

Now I can make an analogy along the lines of say... the home you live in. Most people have locks on their doors to keep all their pretty little assets secure. Some people install security systems. Now you could have otherwise used the money you spent on the security system, locks, etc. and bought a nice big tv, stereo, cpu, etc. But the main question is how willing are you to protect what you value? A little? A lot?

Maybe the people with the fancy security systems have all the toys they want and can afford the security system. The security system can be a small precentage of their income and have no effect on other spending.

[Flatrater]

Originally Posted by lazysmurff

building a big military does help the economy. the government doesnt build the war machines itself, it contracts the work out to private companies like lockhead martin et.al. thereby pumping enormous amounts of money into the private secter which makes our economy look good, because well, when rich people get richer....the economy always looks good.

I agree with this part of your topic. I worked for a defense contractor and that company pumped billions into the local area. I made good money and had great bennies while I worked for Lockheed Georgia corp.

[lazysmurff]

wow, i got economics right...im damned impressed with myself.

[2strokebloke]

I don't think that the U.S. protection really helped all that much over the years.
The only real threat Japan had was Russia, and by the end of the sixties Russia wasn't even all that interested in Japan anymore, and even during the sixties, it was the Japanese who expended the most effort, not the Americans who did the most keep the Russians from coming in.
Of course I have to say that the fact that Russia knew America was backing Japan up probably had alot to do with why Russia never tried anything serious.
The biggest threat to Japan these days would probably be China and that crappy "North" Korea, that even China is only reluctantly friends with these days.

[tenguzero]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050815/...anniversary_dc
--PM Koizumi says Tokyo will never again go to war.--


I'm still wondering why military buildup is really that much of an issue anymore, honestly. Whether you're like me, and feel it's negative and impacts a country's prosperity, or you have no problem with it, and don't see it linked with matters of growth, or maybe you feel something entirely different, you've got to at least ask yourself if it's really as important as it was half a century ago. I mean, let's face it, war is soooo pre-3rd millenia. I mean, is there really any excuse for ANY country to be maintaining a standing army for anything more than possible self-defense nowadays? I wish people would realize that the ONLY thing military has EVER done is get them into trouble. Anything built on the ideals of aggression can only breed such, and militaries are the definition of potential aggression, naked and (all too frequently) unapologetic.

Seriously, if all the country's of the world who maintain anything more than an obligatory personal defense core were to just pull their militaries, and quit funding the multi-billion dollar ventures involved with them, imagine where all that money could go? You wouldn't have to lose any jobs tied into military contracts or whatnot, since the funds could just be re-directed towards public works projects and new technology research. Just think what the estimated 244.8 billion dollar cost involved with production of 2,400 Joint Strike Fighters could be used for instead! Do we really need a NEW fighter jet? Why? For use against WHOM? In a world living under a blanket of self-imposed nuclear threat, what the hell good is a bunch of new Fighters? Why not fund the dismantling of all nuclear warheads? Then send some food and supplies and a quite-being-a-jackass-and-plaguing-yourself-with-AIDS slap upside the head to Africa? Then we could direct billions toward research into the proper production, maintenance, and disposal of nuclear power plants and their byproducts. And N.Korea and Iran and anyone else could have their nuclear power plant amibtions, as nuclear holocaust just wouldn't be such a threat anymore, because large-scale militaries would have been dismantled, so there would no longer be a percieved threat to any country who might be inclined to think such. After all, when it comes down to it, "military superiority" is really just a glorified "who's dick is bigger..." contest.