Hacker News Reader

Comment by scribu | Hacker News Reader

> US military presence in Japan for the last half-century has meant that the Japan doesn't have to invest any money in security

Wikipedia seems to disagree with you [1]:

> In 1976, then Prime Minister Miki Takeo announced defense spending should be maintained within 1% of Japan's gross domestic product (GDP), a ceiling that was observed until 1986. As of 2005, Japan's military budget was maintained at about 3% of the national budget; about half is spent on personnel costs, while the rest is for weapons programs, maintenance and operating costs. As of 2013, Japan currently has the fifth largest defense budget in the world.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Self-Defense_Forces#Budg...

View on HN

Okay, I think my point was obvious, but if you want to be pedantic, yes, I should have said "Japan doesn't have to invest much money in security".

Yes, Japan does have the fifth largest defense budget in the world, but when you consider that the US defense budget it more than the defense budgets of the next 10 spenders combined, it's not really that much for such a large economy.

Also worth noting, the US maintains significant military presence in most of the world's top military-spending countries. For obvious reasons, China and Russia have very little military US military presence, but Saudi Arabia, the UK, France, Japan, Germany, and South Korea all have significant US military presence on their soil.

Thanks. I agree with your larger point, but wanted to clarify this detail, because I've seen people around the web saying that Japan actually has no security forces whatsoever.

To clarify your point, they don't. They have a self-defense force. They lack any serious offensive power since they focus on mostly defensive armaments.

There are also pretty big differences between Japan's SDF and a modern military. Only scraping the surface here, but members of the SDF can leave at any time, for any reason since it's a purely volunteer position. This weakens their military. They are afraid of being too hard on solidiers because if they are, they'll leave. This means you have an army of weak soliders who may not have the proper skills or training that an army like the U.S or China has.

This is why they need to be allowed to have a military. A country should be able to defend itself and the strongest defense, is a powerful and potent offense.

> A country should be able to defend itself and the strongest defense, is a powerful and potent offense.

Ugh. Thousands of Americans died in September 11, which is the obvious result of American military action in the Middle East, and thousands more died in the following wars.

You can't just go around killing people and assume that they're not going to attack you back. The best defense is a good foreign policy that avoids conflict in the first place.

> The best defense is a good foreign policy that avoids conflict in the first place.

Like some kind of hypothetical agreement with Iran?

Yes. Keep in mind that currently anti-Western hostility in Iran are a direct result of American imperialism during the Cold War. The Iran nuclear deal framework wouldn't be necessary if the US hadn't tried to prevent democracy in Iran in the 1970s.

This is likely true, however there are a lot of strings if you pull on anything associated with the Cold War. Even without leaning on domino theory and assuming that Iran was better with a democratically elected government, I don't think it's conclusive to say that "If the US hadn't been involved in Iran, the world as a whole would have been a better place." I think Poland, Hungary, and a lot of Eastern Europe are probably happier without the Soviet Union?

As a friend in Jordan said, sometimes democracy isn't the best first step. And I'd argue that both Atatürk and Nasser played pretty close to the line as well.

Well said!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com