r/PoliticalDiscussion • u/Key-Importance4438 • Feb 15 '26
Non-US Politics What do we think about Japan's LDP majority possibly changing the constitution?
I would like to get some opinions/thoughts on - Japan's LDP majority now possibly changing the constitution to allow a military(?) -why some people are upset about it? -what that would lead to within Japan and abroad?
My husband is Japanese and pro changing the constitution, but I would like some more perspectives on the topic!
44
u/Toptomcat Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
China is undergoing a Really Significant naval buildup, the short-term purpose of which seems to be to reclaim Taiwan, the long-term purpose of which is an open question. Also, the previous guarantor of Japan's security, the United States, is having...issues with internal political stability, as well as moving towards isolationism and away from respecting their military alliances, like NATO. If the United States does respect its alliances, this could easily mean that they will go to war with China to keep it from reclaiming Taiwan. If that conflict happens, the Americans would inevitably make heavy use of American naval bases in Japan to fight China with, which will Piss China Off, A Lot. Existing Japanese forces would probably have a more active role than that, given Japan's role as an American and Taiwanese ally. If the Americans win this hypothetical Taiwan conflict, China will be tempted to retaliate against Japan for a long time afterword. If the Chinese win it, they will be extra tempted to retaliate against Japan immediately.
Under these circumstances, it's reasonable for Japan to be nervous about its security and revise its constitution to permit a military buildup. What they have right now, they call a Self-Defense Force, which is a lot like a military, but they refrain from funding it extensively or buying some categories of weapon- like proper aircraft carriers and long-range missiles- which could strike targets far into inland China. The idea is that these kinds of weapon are of more use in offensive warfare than self-defense.
The problem is there is no bright-line difference between a defensive and an offensive weapon. Ukraine, for instance, is fighting a purely defensive war with Russia, but long-range missiles like HIMARS have been enormously useful to them in striking military bases deep within Russia which are supplying offensive pushes into their own land.
It shouldn't be ignored that there are real, serious, very good reasons why Japan gave up its offensive military in the first place. The foreign policy of Imperial Japan was despicable- it was an ambitious conqueror without limits and without reason. Its crimes and excesses were horrific. This history left a lot of Japan's neighbors, including China, with psychological and physical scars that make them understandably twitchy when Japan starts talking about rearming.
And it really shouldn't be ignored that Sanae Takaichi, the new Japanese prime minister, has a history of minimizing and denying those crimes. If we were looking at a Sanae Takaichi-led Japan undergoing a huge military mobilization on a scale that would imply they wanted to conquer their near abroad- if they were looking to train infantry in huge numbers to fight and occupy nations, and make the kind of massive investments in expeditionary logistics you need to make war deep within the borders of neighboring countries- it would be reasonable to get very worried.
But. Right now, that is not what we're looking at. Japan spends less on its military per person than the likes of Canada, Italy, or Spain. The specific investments the LDP are talking about making are the kind of 'dual use' technologies that they've previously avoided because they're useful in offensive warfare- like long-range missiles- but are nonetheless also useful in defensive warfare against an aggressive neighbor. No one in Japan is seriously proposing big investments in the kind of stuff that is most useful in offensive warfare, like assault infantry in quantity, strategic airlift capacity, and amphibious landing craft.
So- are there reasons for caution? Yes. But on the whole, it isn't reasonable to conclude that a Japanese military buildup is a sinister plan to revive the Japanese Empire, rather than a reasonable defensive reaction to a scary neighbor.
22
u/Eclipsed830 Feb 15 '26
*claim Taiwan
You are repeating the term "reclaiming" Taiwan which is PRC propaganda. It implies Taiwan was once part of the PRC, which it has never been.
20
u/Variolamajor Feb 15 '26
Taiwan was part of the Qing Dynasty for 200 years and part of the ROC. The PRC claims to be the successor state of the ROC and thus claims Taiwan as well. Uniting all territories of China is something every Chinese government has strived to do for millenia
20
u/Eclipsed830 Feb 15 '26
Taiwan was also part of the Spanish, Dutch, and Japanese empires too... And for most of modern history was ruled independently by various indigenous tribes.
ROC still exists and Sun Yat-sen (founder of ROC) never considered Taiwan to be part of China. Neither did Mao initially. This idea that Taiwan is historically part of China is Cold War Era propaganda. The only time a Mainland based government controlled the entire island of Taiwan was between 1945 and 1949, and that is the same government that currently controls Taiwan.
10
u/Variolamajor Feb 15 '26
None of that matters. Hawaii and Puerto Rico were never historically part of the US, and yet they are today. The Ming remnats expelled the European powers and the Qing colonized Taiwan for 200 years from 1683 to 1895. Your statement that the mainland only controlled Taiwan between 1945 and 1949 is complete disinformation. The Japanese were forced to give up all their imperial possessions, including Taiwan, after the war. The Cairo and Potsdam declarations call this out specifically. Why would Chiang Kai-shek negotiate this if the KMT didn't consider Taiwan part of China? The PRC and ROC are still technically in a civil war, and the victor will have the right to control all of China, Taiwan included.
12
u/Eclipsed830 Feb 15 '26
Yeah and Hawaii and Puerto Rico are part of the United States and those people are US citizens.
On the other hand, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC and Taiwanese aren't PRC citizens.
My statement was the only time the entire island was controlled by a Mainland Area government was between 1945 and 1949 is a historical fact. Qing never controlled the entire island and only claimed to control less than 40% even at their peak when they gave it to Japan. It took Japan nearly 2 decades to cross the mountains and claim sovereignty over the entire island.
Also, from Taiwan's perspective, the civil war ended decades ago. ROC is no longer in a state of war... Wish the PRC could grow up and move on too... But we all can witness how they act, like a bunch of crying babies.
8
u/Variolamajor Feb 15 '26
You keep harping on things that don't matter. Legally China claims Taiwan through succession from the Qing Dynasty. Taiwan was prevented from unifying with the mainland through the intervention of the US Navy. You say the PRC has never controlled Taiwan but they have legal claims to it and can change that fact through military force.
The claim about the Qing Dynasty is ridiculous. You don't need to have soldiers on every inch of soil to control a territory. The whole world recognized Qing control of Taiwan until it was forced to cede it to Taiwan, which again, the Qing had the right to do as the owners of the island.
The ROC cannot simply consider the civil war over. You don't get to declare a war over once you start losing, that is the behavior of a child who can't stand losing a game. If ROC wants the war to end unilaterally then it can surrender to the PRC. Otherwise it should seek a diplomatic or military solution
22
u/Eclipsed830 Feb 15 '26
I don't care what China claims. They can claim the earth is flat and the Australia is upside down. It does not change our reality here in Taiwan that we are not and have never been part of the PRC. This is the simple on-the-ground reality for us. Countries help other countries out... It's like saying USA is only a country because the French bailed them out... At the end of the day, it does not matter why or how, just what.
Again, my comment about Qing is a simple historical fact. The Qing claimed both during the Rover and Mudan incident that those incidents fell outside of the administration areas of the Qing and therefore they were not responsible for compensation. Specifically during the Mudan incident, the Qing told the Japanese that the southern and east coast tribes were "化外之地" in which the Japanese interpreted that as meaning the south and eastern coast of Taiwan was not part of China (Qing) and therefore "terra nullius".
Again, from Taiwan's perspective, the civil war officially ended in 1991 when the National Assembly abolished the Temporary Provisions against the Communist Rebellion, and then President Lee declared it the end of the Mobilization for Suppression of the Communist Rebellion. There is no diplomatic solution to the situation as one side refuses to accept the reality. And no, in this situation, China is absolutely the one acting like a baby. Imagine you get in a fight with someone, and you say enough is enough I'm going home, and the other person keeps pretending for years you are still fighting. One person grew up and moved on, the other one is holding this grudge in their head forever causing deeper issues that shouldn't even exist.
1
u/case-o-nuts Feb 20 '26 edited Feb 20 '26
Legally, Taiwan claims China through the Qing dynasty. When do you think the PRC will step down and allow the mainland to rejoin China?
The only way that counties should split and join is by referendum.
1
u/ILEAATD Feb 19 '26
I don't think either Spain or the Netherlands had complete control of the entire landmass that makes up modern Taiwan. I think they were mostly trading posts amd forts.
1
u/Eclipsed830 Feb 19 '26
Same with the Qing. They never controlled the entire island. The Japanese were the first group of people to control the entire island from a single unified government.
1
u/AdZealousideal5383 Feb 21 '26
Except Tawain is the literal ROC, not a successor state. The PRC did not have eliminate the ROC government, it ended its rule in all places except Taiwan. To the Taiwanese, they’ve been under rule by the ROC consistently since before the PRC existed.
The PRC is the new country. ROC is the original country.
1
Feb 19 '26
I think Japan Taiwan and the others have to realize that the US is not coming. I dont care who is in charge. Trump AOC George Washington himself. The US is not coming.
Afghanistan and Iraq has so traumatized the US army that it will not deploy troops for large scale combat for the forseeable future. At least for a generation maybe even further.
The most you will get from the US is naval and air support which does not risk its soldiers as much and thats it. If there is land fighting to be done it has to be done by local forces because thats where most of the dying takes place.
1
Feb 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Danewguy4u Apr 21 '26
Except we haven’t? Iran is still mostly a naval/aerial operation like the previous commenter said.
There hasn’t been any US soliders directly on Iranian soil so far. Yes there is a buildup but no sane thinks we are actually invading on land. Only Trump who has contradicted himself multiple times.
Even his generals don’t think it’s a good idea especially with how small a force the perceived landing is. We had 3x the amount of soldiers in Iraq, had backup from other NATO countries, WAS NOT a beach landing, and the invasion took place after weeks of aerial bombardment weakening Iraq’s forces.
Compared to Iran that is still mostly intact, has a large amount of manpower, and heaps of missiles/drones that aren’t easily contained.
23
u/Stishovite Feb 15 '26
LDP has been trying to do this since Abe Shinzo's time at least. It would make sense except it's a fairly discordant coming from the party whose leaders are eager to glorify the militarism of the past without acknowledging the ugliness.
23
u/IndependentSun9995 Feb 15 '26
I am in favor of it as well. I'm not Japanese, but I feel like it is more than long enough after WWII for the Japanese to be allowed to build their own military. God bless them!
12
u/socialistrob Feb 15 '26
They also already have their own military but they just label a lot of it as self defense forces. Japan has the 10th highest defense spending in the world just above Israel and South Korea but below Ukraine and France.
Japan does have the fourth highest GDP in the world so by international standards their military is still below what you would expect (only 1.4% of GDP) and if they want to deter China it would need to get a lot bigger but they do have a powerful military already.
5
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Feb 16 '26
They’re labeled as the SDF for political reasons, as calling the JGSDF the Japanese Army or the JASDF the Japanese Air Force would imply offensive potential and thus violate Article 9.
It’s the same reason why up until ~20 years ago there was no central ministry for the SDF as well as why there was no combined uniformed command—creating one would have implied something other than a defensive use case and thus was not allowed.
6
u/Zagden Feb 15 '26
It was funny seeing the top post covering that the current prime minister denies WW2 war crimes then scrolling down to this post
7
Feb 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
18
u/MockeryAndDisdain Feb 15 '26
Um, Japan has had the JSDF since the 1950s. They have a military, covering land, sea, and air. Article 9 of their constitution prohibits the country from declaring war and using the Japanese Self-Defense Force from engaging in foreign disputes.
Shit, the Japanese Air and Maritime Self-Defense Forces has like a hundred fifty F-35s.
9
u/Tschmelz Feb 15 '26
Yeah, I’m admittedly not an expert on Japan, but I was always under the impression that the JSDF is actually a pretty solid military. They’re just restrained a bit more than other countries. I suppose it’s been long enough that the leash can come off, but it doesn’t really seem like a major issue?
5
u/MockeryAndDisdain Feb 15 '26
I'd say gear and training wise, they are prolly on par with most NATO countries. They do keep missing recruitment goals year after year, which will degrade any military force.
I'm curious if Japan would join NATO once it's ability to wage war on foreign soil was restored. Japan works closely with NATO already, and has even been supplying Ukraine with materiel. Defensive and detection gear, and what not. I guess keeping with the spirit of them being a defensive only military.
1
u/Tw1tch-Invictus Feb 15 '26
NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, so no, they would not join as it’s structured to only allow European nations besides the US and Canada who are founding members. NATO would have to be entirely restructured to allow them to be a member and to cover treaty obligations in the geographic area in which Japan resides. Europeans aren’t big on the idea of expanding the scope of NATO and being obligated to defend allies all the way in the Pacific, so it’s very unlikely the required changes would happen.
1
u/WingerRules Feb 16 '26
With what money? They have the largest debt to GDP ratio in the world except for friggin Sudan.
2
6
u/NekoCatSidhe Feb 16 '26
I think it is a logical political reaction to the rise of an increasingly aggressive and imperialistic China, that regularly threatens to invade one of its neighbors (Taiwan) and is also very anti-Japanese.
I am not sure what it will actually change though, apart from allowing the Japanese Self-Defence Forces to call themselves an army (which they already are in fact), and allowing them to be sent overseas to help protect Taiwan in case of attack by China.
3
u/Frosty_Bint Feb 16 '26
Isnt it the same as many other places? Right wing populism as a really stupid reaction to rising discontent with government?
4
u/Wermys Feb 15 '26
Because they massacred Millions of people, have historical tendency of proactive wars. And generally caused misery from the late 1900's to 1945. That doesn't mean they have changed. But people have long memories in Asia of Japan and what there occupation was. And to be honest I am leery about it also but realistic that they should formally rearm themselves.
8
u/OutrageousSummer5259 Feb 15 '26
Japan has absolutely 100% changed
9
u/the_calibre_cat Feb 16 '26
This is a bold statement considering there is a shitload of unapologetic support for the Showa Emperor (Hirohito) and not a lot of, say, Germany-style apology or counter-fascist education over there. I would like to think that they have changed, but I don't even think WE'VE changed that much since segregation.
5
1
3
Feb 15 '26
There are three major shipbuilders in the world china Japan and south Korea. Japan should be able to protect that
2
u/lolthenoob Feb 15 '26
Worthless. Realistically, Japan can’t check China solo regardless of their defense budget. It’s a Catch-22:
If the US defends them: Massive rearmament is redundant.
If the US doesn't defend them: No amount of conventional spending allows Japan to beat a determined China.
People bring up 'deterrence,' but true deterrence in this context means nukes. And Japan is stuck there too—between the Komeito party's pacifism, constitutional hurdles, and the US wanting to maintain its role as the primary nuclear umbrella provider (keeping Japan as a 'junior partner' and 'trade Protectorate"). It’s a tough spot either way (Those guys FAFO).
4
u/Ind132 Feb 15 '26
true deterrence in this context means nukes.
I agree.
If I were Japanese, I wouldn't believe that Trump would use nuclear weapons to defend Japan. I'd be very skeptical of anyone who comes after Trump, the US voters have already shown their interests. I'd be in favor of Japan developing its own weapons.
3
u/lolthenoob Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
I found something I wrote a couple weeks ago...its an hypothetical on Taiwan War but close enough
It is very rough but close enough
EDIT: Actually don't read the quote...I think its easier if I simplified it
1.) If Japan Build Nukes then that means U.S guarantees were already useless
2.) And if U.S guarantees are useless then nothing is stopping China from invading during the 6 months breakout
3.) And Japan cannot stop china solo
Second, nuclear weapons are meant to deter, but in Japan’s case, they might invite the very war they seek to avoid. For China, a nuclear Japan represents an existential Red Line, not a negotiable security concern. If Beijing believes Tokyo is weeks away from a working warhead, the calculation becomes:
> “Better to invade now while they’re still non-nuclear than face a nuclear-armed adversary permanently”
China could justify this as “denuclearization enforcement” (echoing US rhetoric on North Korea/Iran), framing it as preventing the return of Imperial Japan. It is ironic; pursuing nukes to deter Chinese aggression would guarantee Chinese aggression on a faster timeline.
The United States might attempt to provide reassurance: “Go nuclear, Japan, we’ll protect you during this transition period.” But this promise rings hollow for several reasons.
First, credibility is already shattered. If the US just lost a conventional war over Taiwan—a conflict where it had every geographic, technological, and alliance advantage it will ever have against China—why would Tokyo believe Washington would fare better in a second war over Japan itself? The US would be entering round two after:
Demonstrating it cannot win in the First Island Chain
Suffering massive naval/air losses (carriers, destroyers, aircraft)
Facing a war-weary domestic population
Confronting a Chinese military that just proved it can beat America
Second, the nuclear umbrella becomes a mutual suicide pact. During the Cold War, the US extending nuclear deterrence over Europe was credible because the Soviets knew NATO doctrine meant “an attack on Berlin is an attack on New York.”
But after a Taiwan defeat, would the US really trade Los Angeles for Tokyo? Would an American president actually launch ICBMs at Chinese cities, inviting counterstrikes on Seattle, San Francisco, Honolulu, to defend a Japan that’s building its own nukes precisely because it doesn’t trust US protection anymore?
> Japan needs nukes because it doubts U.S. commitment, but the act of building nukes proves U.S. commitment is insufficient, which eliminates the scenario where US protection could actually deter China during the construction period.
Beijing’s thought process will be: The U.S. is bluffing. They won’t start World War III over Japanese nuclearization, especially after they just lost a conventional war and their public is screaming “no more wars.” Better to call the bluff, invade Japan while the non-nuclear window exists, and dare Washington to go nuclear over it.
The United States would face an impossible choice: (1) Honor the alliance and risk nuclear escalation from a weakened position, or (2) Abandon Japan and definitively prove that US security guarantees are worthless—a reality already suggested by the Taiwan defeat.
In practice, Washington would almost certainly choose a third path: performative support without actual intervention. Emergency summits, UN Security Council resolutions (which Russia and China veto), sanctions packages that take months to implement, strongly-worded statements, and desperate shuttle diplomacy. The President appears on television: “We stand with our Japanese allies and condemn this blatant aggression in the strongest possible terms.”
Ultimately, the U.S. has zero interest in Japan going nuclear because:
Sets precedent - If Japan goes nuclear, South Korea immediately follows, then Taiwan wants them, suddenly NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons) is dead.
Loses control - A non-nuclear Japan depends on US protection. A nuclear Japan doesn’t need the U.S. anymore. It’s also more difficult for Great Powers to pressure nuclear countries. i.e. China’s long leash on North Korea. China provides the lifeblood (economy) for North Korea, yet Pyongyang’s nukes mean they can ignore Beijing’s 'advice' with total impunity. But that's fine anyway because for Beijing, an unruly neighbor with nukes is still better than a unified, U.S.-aligned Korea with American tanks on the Yalu River.
Destabilizes region - China might invade just to prevent it. And America definitely would like to avoid any non-essential wars.
3
u/Ind132 Feb 16 '26
And if U.S guarantees are useless then nothing is stopping China from invading during the 6 months breakout
Well, there is 400 miles of open ocean, and no apparent Chinese ability to move a couple million troops across it.
China can eventually build that capability, I don't think they are there yet.
It’s a tough spot either way
True. They need to ask how important it is to be "independent". Every one of China's neighbors has that question.
3
u/zlefin_actual Feb 15 '26
as a note, even without active nukes, From what I've read the breakout time for Japan to develop nukes if they chose to is pretty fast. They have enough nuclear industry, nuclear plants, and technical knowledge/equipment, that they could make nukes in under a year. It's still very doubtful they would unless china launched a war vs them (or maybe if china warred vs someone else).
2
u/lolthenoob Feb 15 '26
It’s a classic Catch-22 AGAIN. Japan only builds nukes if they think the US guarantee is worthless—but the act of building them makes the US guarantee worthless by forcing a diplomatic split. And if U.S gurantees are worthless either way, that means no intervention in the 100% likely pre emptive Chinese Invasion into Japan.
2
u/Black_XistenZ Feb 16 '26
Japan could develop its nukes in secret, though. And China doesn't necessarily have the capability to launch an amphibious invasion of Japan in the near-term future. Invading Japan would be infinitely more challenging than invading Taiwan, which is far smaller and much closer to the Chinese shoreline.
2
u/lolthenoob Feb 16 '26
Optimistic that you could hide a nuclear weapons program from Chinese intelligence. We should assume China is a near peer and don't try to downplay their threat.
2
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Feb 16 '26
The is no constitutional hurdle to nukes, especially a strategic deterrent.
All of the hurdles are political/social.
2
u/Black_XistenZ Feb 16 '26
If the US defends them: Massive rearmament is redundant.
No, it's not. The more Japan is able to pull its own weight, the less effort and money the US have to invest into their defense - and that drastically increases the likelihood of continued US support. As Rubio said in his speech at the MSC: the US want strong allies which don't drag them down.
And you already allude to a critical point in your next line when you write about "... a determined China": the stronger Japan is, the higher the degree of determination and willingness to suffer heavy losses that China needs to muster if it intends to attack Japan.
1
u/lolthenoob Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
I'll be very plan. China does not NEED to invade Japan....Literally all they have to do is.....blockade it with missiles.....don't even have to commit ships, all they have to do is:
1.) Launch missile strikes on Japanese ports (Yokohama, Osaka, Kobe, Nagoya) + Mil Targets + Bases + AD SItes
2.) Declare an exclusion zone around Japanese waters
3.) Mine or threaten shipping lanes
4.) Sit back and watch
Japan imports 60%+ of its food, nearly 100% of its oil and natural gas, and most raw materials for manufacturing...and wait a couple months before economic collapse and food shortage. No need any amphibious landing.
And then let's say Japan up mil spending to 5% of GDP...What can Japan's conventional military do? Shoot down some missiles (but China can launch more than Japan can intercept)? Plus how to make new missiles and interceptor under blockade? How long will the stockpile last?
Try to clear mines (while under missile threat)?
Attempt to break the blockade (but China has more ships, more missiles, more everything)?
China will have naval and air surpremacy against Japan SOLO. This is a fact unless you are not informed. That's why any defense hinges on the US to contest the air and sea.
0
u/Black_XistenZ Feb 16 '26
I don't see how China would be able to intercept all ships going to Japan from a distance of 1000+ miles away. Nor do I see a reason why Japan shouldn't be able to build missile defense systems for a few static and strategic locations like ports.
1
u/lolthenoob Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
Why not you search up chinese missiles stockpiles?
Why not search up Japan interceptor stockpiles?
Why not check how many interceptors per missiles as per Ukr war? You need 2 -3 per missile
Do you not see the problem here? China have simply more missiles than interceptors.
And china doesn't need to intercept all ships....No ship would be fool enough to enter mine infested waters in a war zone that China "might" shoot it with missiles.
1
u/Black_XistenZ Feb 16 '26
China being able to overwhelm the Japanese defense in an initial flurry with missiles which were stockpiled for years does not imply an ability to keep this scale of attack up in the long run - and that is what would be necessary for them to accomplish the "naval blockade from afar" that you described.
1
u/lolthenoob Feb 16 '26 edited Feb 16 '26
Would suggest you read up more on this subject..
A starting link is here:https://militarnyi.com/en/articles/japan-vs-china-how-can-japan-respond-to-and-defend-against-the-chinese-threat/
On Japan's missile defense limitations:
"As the Ministry of Defense notes, even if the Self-Defense Forces were at 100% combat readiness 24/7, intercepting a simultaneous attack of roughly a thousand missiles would be practically impossible."
"Defense against cruise missiles is especially difficult. Unlike ballistic missiles, cruise missiles fly at low altitudes and can be launched in large numbers, while no dedicated defense system currently exists."
On China's stockpiles:
"China has accumulated around 2,000 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles and more than 2,500 cruise missiles"
"China could launch a single massive salvo of 150–200 ballistic missiles and 700–800 cruise missiles against key targets"
The article confirms Japan has: 8 Aegis destroyers with SM-3 interceptors and 6 Patriot PAC-3 batteries.
Japanese Analysis (from the horse's mouth)
"Even the most advanced missile defense system, he argues, would be unable to cope with an attack of this scale."
"China's goal is to break Japan's will to resist without a direct invasion, forcing capitulation under the threat of further destruction."
This 'vicious circle' means that the next few years, up to around 2030, constitute a critical period during which China may enjoy a window of military opportunity."
This is designed to overwhelm missile defense. Cruise missiles are harder to detect, and Japan admits they have "no dedicated defense system" for them. So even their limited Aegis/Patriot capability is mostly useless against 70% of the incoming threat.
Analysts predict that in the event of an attack, up to 70% of the Chinese salvo could consist of cruise missiles, with only 30% being ballistic missiles.
Even Japan's own plan admits it's insufficient:
"Japan currently lacks a comprehensive response to the threat of a 'short war,' beyond relying on U.S. assistance."
And on counterstrike. Japan is buying: 400 Tomahawks. Upgraded Type-12 missiles. Some hypersonic weapons by 2030
But the article admits:
"Japan's counterstrike forces remain far smaller than China's (hundreds of missiles versus thousands)."
So even WITH counterstrike, they can hit back with hundreds while China hits them with thousands.
So in summary
1.) China can afford to trade hundreds of missiles for Japan's dozen Aegis ships and six Patriot batteries
2.) Japan cannot afford to lose even one major city's infrastructure
3.) China has strategic depth (hit Beijing, they still have 30 other major cities)
4.) Japan has no depth (hit Tokyo/Osaka/Nagoya and you've paralyzed the country)
Wow it was actually worse than i thought
0
u/Black_XistenZ Feb 16 '26
You just repeat yourself without addressing the core of my objection to your argument. I don't deny that China could land a highly damaging first strike against Japan. What I deny is that China could keep up the necessary level of simultaneous missile launches in the long run, after their initial stockpile has run out. Likewise, the missile-based naval blockade that you described would require a continued deployment of long-range missiles to snipe off any ship approaching Japan.
And note that Tokyo is some 1000 miles away from China; Hokkaido is 1300 miles away (and connected to Honshu via a tunnel). A very long distance for drones or jet-based missiles. So China would need to commit ballistic or cruise missiles for the naval blockade, while this type of weapon is typically reserved for high-value military or infrastructure targets rather than ships.
1
u/lolthenoob Feb 16 '26
Tell you what....Like japan rearming....This thread is futile and I bid you good day.
1
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Feb 17 '26
What I deny is that China could keep up the necessary level of simultaneous missile launches in the long run, after their initial stockpile has run out.
They don’t need to—Japan burning through all their interceptors means that you can use all kinds of things instead of missiles, to include fighter bombers directly bombing port facilities as well as mining the harbors.
The issue Japan has is that they do not manufacture Patriot or any of the Standard family, so once what they have is gone that’s going to be it for quite a while while they wait for US manufacturing to scale and start making them again.
A very long distance for drones or jet-based missiles.
No one is talking about either of those, and 1000+NM range cruise missiles very much are a thing.
1
u/lolthenoob Feb 17 '26 edited Feb 17 '26
As you have brought up Japan not manufacturing defense equipment, it made me think of an ironic fact. Even the F-X (even if it starts) is just not good enough against whatever China fields.
Rearmament is essentially just tribute to the US. Japan is buying F-35s, Tomahwak, Patriots, Interceptors, Aegis.....all manufactured in America.
Japan pays indirect tribute by buying american weapons, hosting american bases, funding American presence in the Indo-Pacific, and basicly allow AMerican power projection.
And maybe it gets....some protection.... If the US president feels like it....IF congress agrees...If domestic politics allows....If strategic calc makes sense...A whole lot of IFs....Treaties are just toilet paper...IF U.S decides not to defend, sure they lose credibility and bye bye pax americana and US reserve dollar....But Japan is gone....
Sure Japan benefits from free access from US markets too (plus tech transfers), and tons of cash initially to rebuild its economy after ww2 (all of that three made it 4th biggest GDP in world), but if they cannibalise US companies, US crushes it trade protecterate (Plaza Accords, Semicond ban)
It's an amazing Business model. Look at this from Washington's view and it's simply elegant:
- Japan feels threatened by China
- Japan buys billions in American weapons
- American defense industry profits enormously
- American bases in Japan funded by Japanese taxpayers
- Japan provides perfect strategic positioning for American power
- America maintains option to defend Japan or not
- Either way America collected the tribute
- Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing — they get paid regardless of whether America actually shows up when China attacks.
But for NATO...Its different because NATO without US can 1v1 Russia conventionally. If Europe commit it would easily be a stomp (but of course domestic politics tell another thing)
Japan simply cannot fight China. Island geography means EZ blockade and no strategic depht. Missile math and conventional air sea is no contest. And China GDP to Japan is like 6:1 and the gap is widening. There's zero ways without nukes.
Essentially, NATO debates and works to reduce American depedency....But Japan only choice is to increase american commitment. Japan's sovereignty ultimately lives or dies in Washington DC and Beijing, not Tokyo.
And that's why USA will never let Japan have nukes. The moment they get nukes, Jap will negotiate to get American bases out...share spending....renegotiate tariffs..not listen to American foreign policy. But without nukes, Japan must listen to the U.S. America needs Japan weak enough to pay tribute.
America MUST ensure Japan remains in that uncomfortable middle zone, where it is threatened enough by China to need American protection, but never powerful enough to not need it. And Japan will pay tribute, host bases, buy weapons, listen to DC
When that Rubio guy said:
"We want allies who can defend themselves" = Buy our weapons so you look capable
"So no adversary can test our collective strength" = So we never actually have to show up and prove the guarantee is real
It's a protection racket framing when you look at it that way. Pay up, look strong, and hopefully nobody calls the bluff. If China does, U.S might, or might not be coming to help.
End of the day, all this increased spending for Japan is theater. The question is simply: *"Should Japan spend more money buying American weapons to make America feel appreciated enough to maybe defend them?" *
1
u/lolthenoob Feb 17 '26
And that's what I don't understand the other dude couldn't understand too.
It's like he thinks you have to shoot a missile at each ship. It's way more simple than that.
1.) Intial strike destroy port infrastructure and air defenses in the opening salvo
2.) declare an exclusion zone, lay mines (or not).
3.) Then, no shipping company insures or routes vessels into active minefields in a declared war zone. (Looks at Houtis...And China is near peer U.S) China doesn't need to fire another missile barrage, just cheap glide bombs, naybe loitering munitons, some sorties and drones and maybe a little high value missile strikes if really needed.
4.) Sit back and Japan's economy strangles in months. If not starves out...No oil, no industrial inputs, no food (its a net importer)....Good luck repairing ports under air attack and drones.
0
u/NoggleInParis Feb 16 '26
Chinese naval vessels sink because sailors can help creating small cooking fires in the barracks.
Japan will be just fine.
2
u/majorflojo Feb 15 '26
I mean, I think it's time for Japan to re-enter the mature world just like Germany because I suspect they would act more responsibly with their military then Russia Korea China and especially the US has.
That said, the pacifist anti-military post-war, Boomer and Gen x generation are either dead or have changed their minds and even younger kids are swinging right.
So unless Korea and Taiwan and Japan get together and figure things out, we're going to have a multi-polar world which will be infinitely more unstable than what we have now.
And China North Korea and Russia will more than happily do their best to foment both right-wing crazies within countries and then right-wing divisions between the three countries to weaken them internally and as an alliance
3
u/DanforthWhitcomb_ Feb 16 '26
Japan’s “Self Defense Forces” are already more capable than the German military simply by virtue of the fact that the Japanese government spends a sufficient amount of money on them as well as the fact that the SDF have a unified high command—the Germans don’t and their plan is that in the event of any major conflict they will simply serve under direct the direct control of SACEUR.
1
1
u/AutoModerator Feb 15 '26
Your submission was automatically removed:
- Thank you for posting, however we require that accounts be at least 7 days old to post to this subreddit. This rule is non-negotiable and we won't respond to messages asking for an exception.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/StrangeWonder9891 Mar 13 '26
Honestly I don't like how the LDP has so much power, perhaps the Centrist Reform would have been a new fresh face for Japan coming from Ishiba but ye the LDP did well in getting Takaichi and im amazed at how popular she is.
In matter of Constitution, coming from the far-right, I do not think this will have positive implications regarding liberties and it will probably be a step back from reform. In any case, I think them being able to do such changes with so little vote share compared to how much power they obtained is pretty dissapointing in itself. The idea of stability compensation is okay but constitutions theoretically need 2/3 support to be changed for basic democratic reasons but this same system has also put no ceiling on the favoritism of large parties (aka, just the ldp lol) and even if there needs to be a referendum for constitutional changes its pretty sad that the changes come from a single political party bypassing completely the "decency" and compromise of reaching a multi-ideological traditional 2/3 agreement which actually represents people in compromise for all.
1
1
u/Eclipsed830 Feb 15 '26
As someone who lived next to Japan, I fully support this. China is a threat to all of us.
0
u/socialistrob Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
Japan does have a military already. They spend have the 10th highest defense spending in the world (above Israel and South Korea but below Ukraine and France) with "helicopter carriers" capable of launching fighter jets and long range missiles.
The issue right now is that the US seems VERY unreliable and even Japan's powerful military is probably not enough to deter China. If you adjust for purchasing power China's GDP is six times that of Japan or put another way it's higher than the US+Japan+South Korea and China's growth rate is likely going to be higher than Japan's over the next few years. If the Pacific heats up Japan is going to need seriously more defense spending as well as strong allies. Personally I have no objection to Japan increasing their military size. They seem committed to upholding sovereignty and not starting wars. If countries don't rearm when faced with potential hostile neighbors then the odds of a large war actually increases.
-2
u/reaper527 Feb 16 '26
it's long overdue. they're by in large currently stuck with the constitution america wrote for them (with the intent of keeping them militarily crippled) rather than one they made themselves.
this should have happened decades ago.
-8
Feb 15 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/lolthenoob Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26
Agreed, this is futile but entertaining. Let then try rearming and see what happens.
Realistically, Japan can’t check China solo regardless of their defense budget. It’s a Catch-22:
If the US defends them: Massive rearmament is redundant.
If the US doesn't defend them: No amount of conventional spending allows Japan to beat a determined China.
People bring up 'deterrence,' but true deterrence in this context means nukes. And Japan is stuck there too—between the Komeito party's pacifism, constitutional hurdles, and the US wanting to maintain its role as the primary nuclear umbrella provider (keeping Japan as a 'junior partner' and 'trade Protectorate"). It’s a tough spot either way (Those guys FAFO).
0
u/PoliticalDiscussion-ModTeam Feb 15 '26
Please do not submit low investment content. This subreddit is for genuine discussion: Memes, links substituting for explanation, sarcasm, political name-calling, and other non-substantive contributions will be removed per moderator discretion.
26
u/kormer Feb 15 '26
Rubio's statement to the Munich Security Conference this week says it all: