Will joining NATO strengthen Japan's security? - World strategy drawn up by former Prime Minister Abe.
2023-12-24
Category:military I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
No country wants to go to war with NATO.
As soon as we hear the mention of joining NATO, we hear some reluctance, but NATO is the most solid security system in the world, and none of the 30 member countries has ever been attacked by another country since its inception. Since NATO has most of the world's firepower, no country can argue with this military alliance.
GDP 2% is referenced as NATO level
There is no doubt that former Prime Minister Abe was making plans for NATO membership behind the scenes. For this purpose, the Act on the Protection of Specified Secrets and the acceptance of the exercise of the right of collective self-defense, etc. Assuming this, the NATO level of GDP will be 2%. If we consider 2% to be double the current amount, it would become a country that spends more on military spending than Russia every year.
Read it together
Putin cannot declare martial law across Russia. CSTO - Security system collapsing from outside.
Dismantling the Warsaw Pact
CSTO is an alliance of the former Soviet Union
Border lines and security issues
Martial law limited due to lack of troops
Does CSTO really work
Declaration of war highlights desperate isolation
After democratization, Gorbachev dismantled the Warsaw Pact. Since there is no longer a military alliance to compete with NATO, Russia claims that the West rejected the proposal to disband NATO, and in return there was a secret agreement not to expand NATO eastward, but this is not certain. For some reason, Gorbachev died during the Ukraine war.
What the media doesn't talk about much is the CSTO, a collective security system established in 1992 in the former Soviet Union. Although the size of Russia is that of the former Soviet Union, if you check the CSTO member countries on a map, you will see that Russia geopolitically does not share borders with NATO countries. What disrupted this balance was the Baltic states joining NATO, but their national power was small and their borders were short. Meanwhile, the Georgia War breaks out in the south.
The Ukraine war thus occurred as a result of Russia's opposition to NATO's direct border with Russia. However, this is only Russia's claim. As a result, the invasion of Ukraine led to Finland applying to join NATO, leading to a future in which a vast border bordered the country west of Putin's hometown of St. Petersburg.
President Putin annexed four eastern Ukrainian regions and declared martial law. Russian soldiers were short of manpower, and despite a partial mobilization order, many fled the country. The attack on four Ukrainian regions was considered an attack on Russian territory, and martial law was declared for all of Russia, but it turned out to be only the four eastern regions of Ukraine. Apparently it doesn't work.
In addition to domestic political issues, there is also the existence of CSTO. Of the six member states, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Armenia have declared their neutrality on the Ukraine issue. It is unclear whether this means Russia's neutrality toward special military operations or toward a state of war. I tried looking for something similar to NATO Article 5 regarding the conditions for activating the CSTO collective security system, but I couldn't find anything. Under the pretense that Russia is under attack, Mr. Putin declares a state of war and imposes martial law, and if the CSTO does not take action, this collective security system will collapse.
The focus will likely be on whether Putin declares a state of war and acknowledges that Russia is under attack. The condition for using nuclear weapons is that Russia's survival is in danger, but at least that condition is not currently met. A declaration of war could lead to a hopeless checkmate for Russia.
Breaking away from dependence on the United States
Some people say that the Japan-U.S. alliance is enough, but Russia and North Korea seem to be collaborating militarily in the future, and what would happen if China also joined? Joining NATO means a break from the dependence on the United States, which continued for a long time after the war. While Japan would double its military spending, the United States would be able to cut back on spending on the Seventh Fleet.
NATO's second largest military power
It has become the second-largest military expenditure in NATO after the United States, and the mentality that has been hiding behind foreigners with weapons and freaking out will not be talked about unless it is completely changed. If Japan joins NATO, neither North Korea nor China will be able to interfere with Japan at all. The chance is probably 0%.
I'm participating in the ranking.Please click and cheer for me.
Tamogami Military Force Analys In 2009, Tamogami, a former Air Force chief of staff of the Self-Defense Forces, said, "If nuclear weapons are excluded, Japan will be superior to China's combat capabilities."At that time, China was already the world's second-largest military force.Tamogami said, "The combat capability should be determined by the training, training, weapons status, and maintenance of fighter jets and tanks."
In soccer, 11-11 is the same, but there is a big difference between victory and defeat.In the high-performance Formula One race, the proficiency of the driver and the ability of the pit staff determine victory or defeat.Military costs include personnel costs for soldiers, so if a large number of people fail to train or maintain weapons, they will become weak troops.
Historically, China has been vulnerable to war.The overwhelming majority of the Han people have been ruled by different races.After reunification, the only thing China did was to oppress and rule other minorities.These include Uighur and Tibet.
In the recent clashes between India and China in Kashmir, China immediately reached a settlement.In 2020, India's military spending will be less than 30 percent of China's.The increase in Indian troops to the Kashmir region may reveal China's true colors.
What is the ``definition of national defense''? - Japan's national defense consciousness remained ambiguous even before the constitutional amendment.
Definition of national defense by former Minister of Defense
Former Joint Chiefs of Staff Definition
Surrender peace theory without even the concept of national defense
Think about what might happen after surrender
Surrender means giving up your country
When considering Japan's national defense, it is necessary to define what Japan means to protect. Is there a common understanding among the people on this matter? In the first place, the government's views are needed in order to be shared. Former Minister of Defense Ishiba said that national defense is the spatial area of territory and territorial waters, and the lives and property of the people living there. He explained that it was to protect national sovereignty. National sovereignty refers to the mechanisms for managing a country, such as the judiciary, legislation, and executive power.
Regarding national defense, former Joint Chiefs of Staff Kono has stated that the ``country'' that must be protected includes everything such as language, history, and culture, in addition to its territory, territorial waters, people, and sovereignty. If history and culture are protected under national sovereignty, it is possible to think that they are included, but this would be a clearer and more specific expression.
Mr. Hashimoto caused a huge uproar over his statement that Ukraine should surrender, but there was no concept of national defense at all, perhaps because he was putting human life first. In response, there were many counter-arguments, such as that even though Ukrainians say they are fighting to protect their country, Japanese people from third countries have no right to stop them, and that they will be slaughtered if they surrender. However, there was no discussion on what national defense was.
If Ukraine becomes Russia, Ukrainian laws will no longer be respected. Because sovereignty will be taken away. Will that protect Ukraine's language and culture? I have no idea. If Japan were to be invaded by China and become China, it would be unable to resist, even if tens of thousands of shrines and temples would be destroyed. Even if the Japanese language were to be abolished and Chinese made the official language, there would be no resistance. Japan's history will be freely rewritten, and there is a high possibility that the imperial family will be abolished.
As a result of putting human life first, we end up dedicating everything that makes us Japan to the invaders. On the contrary, national defense should be defined as protecting everything that makes Japan a nation. In that sense, I believe that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Kono's opinion represents a shared sense of national defense. The reason why there are some stupid Japanese people who think, ``I don't mind giving up one of my islands,'' is because the idea of protecting the country itself is ambiguous, or because there is no sense of independence in protecting the country. Probably because there isn't one. People who make such statements are members of the Diet.
Japan's missile deployment is a change in the balance of power that China hates the most - a mysterious plan by a pro - China lawmaker.
The deployment of THAAD is said to be the most important reason for the fall of South Korean President Park Geun-hye. This enraged China, which banned K-POP, shut down travel to South Korea, and imposed economic sanctions that are still in place today. Domestically, various scandals erupted, leading to the impeachment of the president, resulting in his arrest and detention. Various stories have been said about these cases, including that pro-China and pro-North Korean leftists fabricated scandals regardless of their pretenses, and that the Diet passed an impeachment resolution based solely on weekly magazine articles.
As long as China and North Korea are facing each other with the United States through the long-range deployment of intercontinental ballistic missiles, the US military will not be able to attack easily, and at the same time, they will not be able to intimidate neighboring countries in Asia with missiles. Since it is possible, this structure has many advantages. Neither Japan nor South Korea have nuclear missiles. Japan is exposed to North Korean missiles and Chinese provocations on a daily basis.
On the other hand, if missiles were placed a stone's throw from China, the strategic balance of power would fundamentally change. Even if China threatens Taiwan with missiles, if missiles suddenly fall on China from Kyushu or Okinawa, China will not be able to do anything careless. On the other hand, China cannot deploy missiles near the American mainland.
In Japan, there was a member of the Diet who opposed the ability to attack enemy bases, saying something like a kindergarten child's argument that if you carry a weapon, you will make others angry. During his time as Minister of Defense, he also scrapped the Aegis Ashore plan. According to media polls, he appears to be in second place as a candidate for the next prime minister. Japan deploying missiles is an environment that China would most dislike.
North Korea's missile test - Japan's nuclear weapons will determine a game change in Asia.
It appears that North Korea launched a rocket on the 18th, but if the purpose is to attack Japan, Taepodong 1 already has a range of 1,500 km, and Taepodong 2 has a range of 6,000 km, so it is not Japan that is currently developing it. It's coming to America.
On top of that, Japan must take advantage of North Korea's foolish missile tests to strengthen its defense capabilities and revise its constitution. Prime Minister Kishida seems to have sent encouragement to the local community like a messenger of peace by appealing to the G7 countries for the abolition of nuclear weapons, but what really needs to be considered is Japan's nuclear shelling.
If nuclear missiles were placed in Japan, North Korea's current attempts would have little meaning. In shogi terms, this is a situation where you are stuck. Just as they desperately try to develop a missile with a range that can reach the United States, a nuclear missile launched from Japan is dropped. The same will apply to China. In nuclear sharing, the launch button is ultimately held by the United States.
Unless North Korea launches a satellite, it will be unable to detect missile launches from Japan and will not have an interception system. This would also be beneficial for the United States, as it would increase its negotiating power. Even if Japan threatened Taiwan or the Senkaku Islands with missiles, China would be unable to do anything if Japan were to immediately launch missiles at China.
Before nuclear sharing can occur, it is necessary to join NATO, but at a NATO meeting immediately after the G7, President Macron, who had met face-to-face and ate okonomiyaki in Hiroshima, made a side-note, and talk of a Tokyo liaison office was shelved. It's really lacking in roots. On the contrary, since Japan is calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons, it was announced in Hiroshima that there was no need for nuclear sharing. NATO is ultimately protected by nuclear weapons. So what was 2% of GDP at the NATO level without cooperation with NATO?
Prime Minister Kishida strongly condemned North Korea's latest missile launch. The enemy will attack you and throw missiles at you.
Comparison of US military stationing costs in Japan and South Korea. Is it acceptable to use Okinawa in an emergency on the Korean Peninsula?
Japan pays 86% of the cost of US forces in Japan. The cost burden for US forces stationed in South Korea has not been made public, but under the Trump administration, the cost of stationing US forces in South Korea for four years was made public, and South Korea's share of the cost was 30%. In the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, the United States says that operations can be carried out with the support of U.S. forces stationed in Japan. However, losing a front-line base is expected to result in many casualties on the South Korean side.
In effect, Japan is also indirectly bearing the cost of South Korea's defense. During the Korean War, the U.S. military conducted operations based in Japan, and Japan provided logistics support such as providing supplies. Even now, in terms of both practical and cost considerations, the US Forces in Japan is the base of the US 7th Fleet for the purpose of defending the liberal camp in Asia. In other words, Japan is bearing the cost of stationing US forces in Japan, including South Korea's defense costs.
In the past, in Japan-Korea relations, no Japanese person objected to the idea that an emergency on the Korean Peninsula was the same as an emergency in Japan, but the situation is changing with the arrival of Moon Jae-in. For example, if Japan and South Korea were to sever diplomatic relations, there would likely be voices in Japan against the use of Japanese tax dollars for the defense of South Korea. Ultimately, the United States views this imbalance in the burden of stationing costs as a problem.
Japan and South Korea do not have a military alliance. In the event of an emergency on the Korean Peninsula, if Japan's ally the United States is in danger and Japan is expected to suffer damage, Japan will exercise its right of collective self-defense, but there is no doubt that South Korea will help Japan in the future as well. I don't think that will happen. Moon Jae-in simply said that he would abolish GSOMIA. The more rifts arise in Japan-South Korea relations, the more likely the US military will demand that South Korea bear the costs.
