Japan as a military superpower
Superpower? That may overstate the case– but Japan’s Self-Defense Forces are extraordinarily professional and adept. I was extremely impressed with the Japanese officers and non-coms I met in Baghdad, and I know the US Navy thinks highly of Japan’s naval forces.
StrategyPage has an short but information-rich commentary on Japan as a military power. Let me begin with a digression. My friends, colleagues, and partners, Jim Dunnigan and Al Nofi, are the intellectual and organizational brains behind StrategyPage. StrategyPage was the first website to subscribe to my Creators Syndicate column. I also contribute an item now and then (East Africa, the Balkans, occasionally the Middle East). All of this makes a link from this blog to StrategyPage something of an “inside connection.”
It’s been gratifying to see StrategyPage get increasing recognition outside the Internet. That usually follows a “Dunnigan appearance” on television. StrategyPage alway tries to get the relevant military details in its articles, and if an article misses one or two the barrage of emails from knowledgeable readers adds them. That’s why the site’s rep is so solid. Still, I remember getting an email in 2000 from someone telling me “you guys [at StrategyPage] are just a bunch of wargamers.” I found that a curious pejorative and sent it on to Jim Dunnigan. Jim said he had several just like it. The gripers clearly hadn’t looked at our bios, but that wasn’t their problem. They associated “games” with toys, not analytic and historical simulations. The wargames connection, however, gave StrategyPage a “first audience” on the Internet, and some advertising. (Jim has designed over 250 commercial games.)
Which leads to Harold Hutchison’s short essay on “Japan as a military superpower.” I read it Friday morning — the day after it appeared on StrategyPage– and thought, “This is first rate.” The guys at RealClearPolitics.com also think so; they linked to Hutchison’s analysis this morning (Saturday, May 14).
Hutchison is a regular Strategypage analyst and contributor. His short essay not only has the relevant “hard data” (particularlyl on the Japanese Navy), but succinctly relates the geo-political context. Here’s the link. Read the whole thing– but pay attention to Hutchison’s conclusion:
The underlying truth is that at this time, Japan is arguably the strongest power in East Asia – and it is at this point with one hand tied behind its back. Should Japan be pushed to the point where it feels it needs to use all the military power it is capable of generating, it could readily become a superpower in military terms. Its tradition is of a highly-trained, professional force that can be a fierce adversary (as it demonstrated during World War II) would be there, and this has long worried Japans neighbors. The only reason Japan is not a superpower is because it has chosen not to pursue that course.
I wrote an essay in early 2001 that was essentially a “tour of China’s borders.” A question I was asked on a radio show (late 2000?) led to that column. The listener wanted to know “what can be done about China?” As I recall, the listener was of the opinion that China was going to be too powerful and –inevitably– the US and China would clash. I said that China had neighbors. With the exception of North Korea and Myanmar (Burma), China’s neighbors were highly suspicious of Beijing. Chinese militarization would spark regional responses. Sure, regional rivalries could lead to war, and a war with the US. Regional rivalries might also deter Chinese military activity.
Here’s the link to that column, which is a bit dated in some respects, though the basic geo-strategic point remains relevant.
A key quote:
Japan: Old, deep enmities mark the Japanese-Chinese relationship. Beijing once let Washington know it approved of the U.S. Navy vessels berthed in Yokohama. From Beijing’s perspective, Washington kept a thumb on Japan. It’s time to remind Beijing that the United States and Japan are allies. Japan already operates Aegis destroyers. Japan needs a few more.
[ED: so write an update column.]
Harold Hutchison’s analysis of Japanese military capabilities does more than illustrate my point about “regional responses.” As Hutchison points out, Japan began a naval modernization program in the mid-1990s. We can argue with Hutchison’s assessment that Japan is the strongest military power in East Asia (though in terms of seapower and quality land forces in the region Hutchison can make a strong case for Japanese superiority). American and Japanese naval and air forces have coordinated command and control capabilities, so their forces can support one another with great effectiveness. China can’t measure its capabilities against the US alone, or against Japan alone; it must measure its capabilities against the combined forces of the US and Japan. And then– as my old column points out– it has to cast an eye at Vietnam and India, at Taiwan, at the “Muslim” republics, and Russia.
I think China would love to repay Japan for Nanking, and I think they would regret it severely if they tried. I think they know this, and will content themselves with petty proxy brinksmanship through North Korea, which happens to be a useful tool to extort better trade and political deals from the US.
Comment by Improbulus Maximus — 5/15/2005 @ 6:50 pm
You forgot South Korea. As to Russia. Were it not for the United States and Japan China would have little trouble taking the Russian Far East. Russia is a mess, and is getting worse all the time. I doubt she could make more than a token effort in defending her far eastern territories, and without the Japanese-American alliance backing her up (albeit unofficially) Russia would most likely be at the negotiating table with China discussing how to make war reparations at this moment. I wouldn’t rely on Russia at the moment.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 5/15/2005 @ 9:58 pm
Monday Winds of War: May 16/05 Unrest in Uzbekistan; Flushing Newsweek; Get some Hellfire; Enriching Iran; US interferes in Iran; Is/Hezb deathmatch; Saudi democracy in action; Yemeni cell jugged; Egypt just says no to the Muslim Brotherhood; Airplane!; Fake badges and visas; Flight…
Trackback by Winds of Change.NET — 5/15/2005 @ 11:38 pm
Alan, I disagree about your invasion of Russia scenario. For one thing, Russia has nuclear weapons in abundance. I think there is a fair chance that they’d be prepared to use them to protect the far east which, although massively underpopulated, contains a big chunk of the nation’s oil wealth. And even if they weren’t prepared to go nuclear, I’m not so sure that the Russian military would be overwhelmed in a conventional conflict. It’s geared to fighting a conventional army-on-army conflict (hence its shambolic performance in Chechnya) and even if Russia’s military were lower quality than China’s, the massive geographical expanse of the Far East would give Russia plenty of chance to fall back and regroup. Limited transport links (massive bottlenecks such as the trans-siberian railroad) would also create problems for rapid Chinese advance.
Comment by Andy — 5/16/2005 @ 2:54 am
Asia is fermenting much like Europe used to. Race hatreds, national rivalries, boundless ambition, collapse of status quo power. Race hatreds have always existed among Asians for other Asians. Koreans against Japanese; Chinese against Japanese; Japanese against everyone else; Chinese against everyone else. National rivalries will exhibit sparks for decades to come as China follows it high arc and Japan rises at a slower pace. Other Asian countries are rising fast too and all are tied to a bustling, growing China and Japan. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a military vacuum still exists in the region whether its Siberia, the waters of the Western Pacific or influence among the Asian Tigers. China and Japan are the main contenders for picking clean the old Soviet carcass. Into this growing furball, the United States has stood for its own interests using its unmatched military and economic powers to unite the willing into opposing Chinese influences. For a similar story dust off some European history books pre 1939 for insight on how this Asian story might play out. Don’t think that economics will forever bind these countries in peaceful co-existance. It will serve to cool off the hot-heads but it’s never a crutch for power in the fullest diplomatic meaning of the word.
Comment by changehappens — 5/16/2005 @ 9:46 am
The army has long had it’s germanophiles that are enamored of all things bundeswehr (actually wehrmacht). Back in ‘75 when I first reported to Ft Hood after training, the welcome to post sign had a silhouette of the Bundeswehr’s Leopard MBT instead of the M60A1 that was then our standard MBT. I guess that there’s a parallel to be found vis the USN and the descendants of the IJN.
Comment by JSAllison — 5/16/2005 @ 10:59 am
Andy, think not of the Soviet army of yore, think of the Russian army of today. Ill-trained, ill-equiped, ill-led. And undermanned. Last I heard about half of those inducted in each year’s draft don’t even bother to show up, and Russia hasn’t the resources to hunt them down. We select for the best for our military, the Russians select for the worst. China doesn’t need to conquer Russia, all China needs to do is beat Russia. That would be a lot easier than you would expect. Defeat Russia’s armies, occupy the Russian Far East, then negotiate a peace. China has the resources necessary to take the land, Russia does not have the resources necessary to defend it. As for Russia’s vaunted military equipment. Your equipment is only as good as the people who maintain it. You can have the best equipment in the world, and have it used by the best people in the world, but if it’s not maintained it’s junk. I doubt Russia has the people she needs to maintain the equipment she has. And every year she loses more and more people, between emigration and death an average of one million per annum. Hell, the way things are going over there, I would not be surprised to learn that Russia has more in the way of unreliable nuclear missiles than she does reliable ones. That’s the thing about dictatorships - even when the tyranny is de facto instead of de jure, they lie. They lie to their friends, they lie to their enemies, but worst of all they lie to themselves. Russia is lying to us, and lying to itself, and one day those lies, and our enabling of this behavior, will end in tragedy.
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 5/16/2005 @ 5:45 pm
I have to say that article is questionable at best. I couldn’t find a feedback link so I’ll say it here: “Japan’s economy is half that of China ($3.4 trillion to $6.7 trillion)” This is total rubbish and is inaccurate by a factor of 4-5. Official figures are sketchy at best but most estimates put their GDP in 2004 at about US$1.6 trillion. And it’s not just a typo - the sentence beforehand indicates he really believes it. What’s the point of reading the rest of a theory bult upon a fundamental error like that? James
Comment by James D — 5/17/2005 @ 8:49 am
I was using the 2000 GDP figures here. The latest figures fromt he CIA World Factbook show China has a GDP of $7.262 trillion and 9:10 am
Thanks for the reply. That is the PPP figure and is completely inappropriate for the kind of comparison you are performing. It is an artificial figure adjusted to reflect local buying conditions - for example, the price of eggs and milk in one country may be lower than another, so a person with equal salary in both has higher buying power in the cheaper country. If you add everything up and adjust it that is basically a very oversimplified version of PPP. It is inappropriate for comparing the actual economic size of countries and anyone who has done economics will tell you that. You need to compare at actual exchange rate. The number you quote is not incorrect it is just useless for your purposes. Look here for the data you need: http://www.economist.com/countries/China/profile.cfm?folder=Profile-FactSheet Great article and I know this stuff is hard to understand but there is a BIG difference between PPP and actual GDP or GDP/capita!! thanks, James
Comment by James D — 5/17/2005 @ 10:56 am
Thanks for the comments. I’ll keep that in mind for future articles.
Comment by Harold C. Hutchison — 5/17/2005 @ 11:18 am
Number 2, forget about South Korea. Unless they themselves are invaded they will not come to anyone else’s aid, I’m afraid. Why, incidentally, is no one making what seems to me to be an obvious connection. China has abandoned its own version of international socialism for its own version of National Socialism. With private wealth, a totalitarian regime, a state-centered nationalistic religion, demonization of certain marginals (Christians, Falungong, Taiwanese, Japanese business interests), and expansionist tendancies, why do we not call the Chinese regime what it is…fascist? Don’t they posess all the qualities of fascism? With regards to Siberia, what’s the Han Chinese for Lebensraum?
Comment by Rob — 5/18/2005 @ 5:23 am
Monday Winds of War: May 23/05 china military spending; japanese superpower prospects; chavez wants nukes; uzbekistan; no more incentives for Iran; Iran tries Russia enrichment ploy; Saudis repeal gravity, boil ocean, eradicate terrorism; Palestinian population numbers; port securit…
Trackback by Winds of Change.NET — 5/22/2005 @ 11:34 pm
Let’s look at Tom Clancy’s book from a few years back on this subject, “The Bear and the Dragon”. As you may recall, it has for its plot the Chinese invasion of Siberia (”Operation Spring Dragon”). Clancy’s book had Russia as a NATO member, but it’s probably safe to say that this is not going to happen any time soon (if ever). Having said that, how likely would it be for the US to intervene on Russia’s behalf in the event of such a Chinese offensive? Would it be in the US national interest to keep Siberia in Russian hands? Would the Russians accept such help from the US with their armed forces in their current, debilitated condition? My educated guess is, in such an eventuality, the US would almost certainly offer significant military assistance to the Russians. I can’t imagine any Administration in the US being able to tell itself that it better served American interests by allowing China to annex, by force, such a huge area and the resources it contains. The Russians know that their military wouldnt be up to the challenge and would take whatever help they could get. Of course, never underestimate pride. This would be difficult enough situation for the US, with China’s growing nuclear forces to contend with, not to mention the remoteness of the Siberian battlefield and the logistical nightmares in getting significant US forces there. However, in such a situation I just can’t see the US standly idly by, doing nothing. As amply demonstrated in the last few years, US airpower has global reach and can have decisive influence in combat, even if deployed only in modest numbers. What does everyone else think? If China moves on Russia ala Clancy’s “Spring Dragon”, what would (or should) the US do?
Comment by John R — 5/23/2005 @ 3:12 pm
[…] ked to a Harold Hutchison post (at StrategyPage) analyzing Japanese military strength (see “Japan As A Military Superpower”). The Japanese naval build-up isn’t a phenomenon that began s […]
Pingback by Austin Bay Blog » Why Japan Continues to Re-Arm — 8/3/2005 @ 7:10 am